IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 240 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32879/2007 Dated 19/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- BABY NADEERA S., A.K. MANZIL, KAITHAKADU, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM, CORPORATION BUILDING, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. BY SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008 ALONG WITH WA NO.456 OF 2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. Nos. 240, 456, 743, 1052 & 1306 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellants in these cases applied in pursuance of the notification issued for selection to the post of Lower Division Typist and Confidential Assistants. For both posts, K.G.T.E. English Typewriting, Computer Word Processing or its equivalent was necessary. Petitioners applied for the above post. They did not have K.G.T.E. certificate in computer word processing. According to them, they possessed equivalent qualification. Since equivalent qualification to K.G.T.E. computer word processing can be admitted, it is for the Public Service Commission or the Government to decide what is the equivalent qualification. PSC has got power under rule 13 (b), Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules to decide and accept the equivalent qualification to computer word processing. The words 'its equivalent' were not mentioned in the notification and Service Rules. Admittedly, equivalent qualification also can be considered by the PSC and then it was for the PSC to W.A.No. 240/2008 & connection 2 decide what is equivalent. It is always advisable for the PSC to fix the equivalent qualification recognised at the time of notification itself. But, in this case, that was not done. Several candidates applied for the post contending that the qualification they were possessing is equivalent qualification to lower grade certificate in K.G.T.E. in typewriting and computer word processing. But, after the date of publication of the notification, PSC published equivalent qualification recognised by it. By order dated 30.7.2007, PSC also published list of institutions from which equivalent qualification certificate can be obtained. As regards these petitioners are concerned, PSC found that their qualifications are not equivalent qualification to the qualification to lower grade certificate in K.G.T.E. word processing. 2. As far as W.A.No.240 of 2008 is concerned, contention of the petitioner is that he obtained Ext.P4 certificate from Nethaji Computer and Vocational Training Centre, but, that is issued by a private institute at Thiruvananthapuram. It is only registered with the Government of Kerala under the Society Registration Act. PSC did not accept it as an equivalent qualification. Diploma in desktop publishing stated to have been W.A.No. 240/2008 & connection 3 obtained from PC Planet (Ext.P5) is also not equivalent qualification to computer word processing. Further, that was also signed by by the private institution. It is true that she passed equivalent qualification by Ext.P6, but, result was published only on 28.7.2007, that is, after the last date fixed for filing applications. Since PSC has got power to fix equivalent qualification under rule 13 of the KSSSR and the certificate produced by the appellants are not considered equivalent, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned judgment in W.A.No.240 in 2008. 3. In W.A.No.456 of 2008, Ext.P4 is a certificate issued by Block Panchayat saying that she passed diploma in word processing and DTP in the computer training centre. That is also not one of the certificate recognised as an equivalent qualification to K.G.T.E. certificate in word processing. In fact, she passed K.G.T.E. lower grade certificate by Ext.P5. Date of publication of the result is 28.7.2007 much after the date fixed as last date for filing application. Therefore, on the date of application, she was also not qualified. Hence, W.A.No.456 of 2008 is also liable to be dismissed. 4. Appellant in W.A.No.743 of 2008 has completed a course in MS Office as can be seen from the certificate dated 12.1.2006, Ext.P3. That is also not a certificate which is considered W.A.No. 240/2008 & connection 4 equivalent by the PSC. Hence, appellant in W.A.No.743 of 2008 is also not entitled to apply in terms of the notification. 5. Appellant in W.A. No.1052 of 2008 obtained a certificate issued by National Academy of Information Technology which is also a private institution registered under the Travancore- Cochin Scientific Societies Act, 1955. It is only a private agency registered under the Travancore-Cochin Scientific Societies Act. He also produced Ext.P2 certificate showing that he passed diploma in Software Application (DSA) from Mahathma Gandhi Education Foundation Computer College. It is also signed by the Education Foundation Computer College authorities, Cherthala and not certified by CEDTI. It is only stated that is is an authorised training centre of CEDTI. It is not a recognised diploma recognised by PSC as an equivalent qualification. Petitioner also produced certificate that he has passed diploma in commercial practice in April, 1992. Only after 1994, revised syllabus including word processing was introduced in the diploma in commercial practice and PSC considered the matter and held that only those who got diploma in commercial practice from polytechnics undergoing course in 1994 revised syllabus will be recognised as equivalent qualification. Appellant has further produced a certificate that she has passed W.A.No. 240/2008 & connection 5 K.G.T.E. examination held in September, 2007 and date of publication of the result is 10.1.2008, that is much after the last date fixed for filing of applications. Therefore, on the date of filing application, she was not qualified. 6. Appellant in W.A. No.1306 of 2008 also produced a certificate issued by Bharat Sevak Samaj (Ext.P4) which is stated to be an authorised computer education and training centre, CDCC, formerly ER & DC. Even though CDCC is a recognised institute, certificate produced is not issued by CDCC or its board. But, only issued by the private institution. Therefore, appellant in W.A.No.1306 of 2008 is also not entitled to apply and also is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss all the writ appeals. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No. 240/2008 & connection 6 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. Nos.240, 456, 743, 1052 & 1306 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:15th July, 2008