IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2879 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. LEKHA G., W/O. BIJU, AGED 29 YEARS, PLAVILAYIL, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ANILKUMAR C.G., S/O. T.C.GOPINATHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, CHENNAKKATTU PADINJATTETHIL, KAIPATOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, PSC DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9964 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s. 2879/2008 & 9964/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these two writ petitions and therefore, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.2879/2008 in the first instance. 2. Petitioner applied for the post of L.D.Typist in Various Departments. One of the qualifications prescribed in that regard as per Ext.P1 is acquisition of certificate in Computer Word Processing, issued by the K.G.T.E. But, the notification also contemplates an equivalent qualification. PSC had specifically enumerated certain institutions as competent to issue a certificate which will be treated as an equivalent qualification, as per Exts.P12 and P13, produced along with I.A.4253/2008. One of the institutions enumerated in that behalf in Ext.P12 notification issued by the PSC, is C-DAC (formerly known W.P.(C)s.2879 & 9964/2008 2 as ER & DCI). Clause 3 of the said notification reads as follows (what is extracted herein is the translation) In so far as the institutions under clause (d) to (i) of Clause 1 are concerned, only the certificates issued pursuant to a course conducted directly by the institutions will be acceptable and certificates issued by the private affiliated institutions will not be accepted. 3. Certificates issued to the petitioner in this case are Ext.P2 and P3. The said two certificates are seem to have been issued to a candidate having completed the prescribed course of the Bharat Sevak Samaj Computer Centre, Pathanamthitta. It contains the seal of Course Director, ER & DCI. It also contains the logo of Electronics Research and Development Centre of India. I had perused the originals of Exts.P2 and P3 also. 4. After hearing the Couonsel for sometime the case was adjourned and it is thereafter that the petitioner has W.P.(C)s.2879 & 9964/2008 3 produced Ext.P14, along with I.A.4253/2008. Ext.P14 is the certificate which was issued by the Programme Manager of the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing. It reads as follows:- The PGDCA course of C-DAC at Bharath Sevak Samaj Computer Centre, Pathanamthitta is directly conducted by the C-DAC (formerly ER & DCI) Thiruvananthapuram. Since C-DAC has got only one Centre at Thiruvananthapuram, we are directly conducting the same course in various Centres of BSS and other institution having sufficient facility for the convenience of students belonging to other parts of the State. 5. Ext.P14 certificate indicates that C-DAC has only one Centre at Thiruvananthapuram and the PGDCA course of BSS Computer Centre, Pathanamthitta, is directly conducted by the C-DAC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner must be treated as having attended a course, which is directly W.P.(C)s.2879 & 9964/2008 4 conducted by C-DAC which is one of he enumerated institutions. 6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.C.Unnikrishnan and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, Mr.Alexander Thomas. 7. Standing Counsel submits that Ext.P14 was obviously not available before the PSC while it issued the rejection memos. But I note that clause 6 of Ext.P12 contains a provision which enables the PSC to consider certificates for the purpose of determining whether the qualifications possessed by the candidate can be treated as acceptable or not. Ext.P14 was not earlier available before the Commission. In my view, the issue is to be re-considered in the light of Ext.P14. 8. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- W.P.(C)s.2879 & 9964/2008 5 9. Petitioner may file a representation pointing out these aspects producing an authorized copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment, before the Secretary of the Commission, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If so, the competent authority shall re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P14 and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and take a fresh decision within six weeds thereafter. W.P.(C).9964/2008 Discussion in so far as the Writ Petition No.2879/2008 is applicable in the case of the petitioner herein also. Petitioner shall file a representation indicating the aspects as already mentioned above within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, producing an authorized copy of the writ petition as also a copy of Ext.P10 before the first respondent and if so, the competent authority of the PSC W.P.(C)s.2879 & 9964/2008 6 shall take a decision within a period of six weeks thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs