IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12374 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BIJOY.T.S., THARAYIL (PAZHAYATTIL) VEEDU, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ALUVA (VIA), PIN-683 516. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.SHIBU PUDUSSERY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KAKKANADU, KOCHIN-682 030. 4. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOR ELECTRONICS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PRAJO'S TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, IHRDE FOR R.4 SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD FOR R4 SC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12374/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for the post of L.D.Typist in Various Department pursuant to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission on 31.12.2005. One of the qualifications prescribed for the post is a pass in Computer Word Processing conducted by the KGTE or an equivalent qualification. Subsequently the Commission had published a list of 13 enumerated institutions, conducting courses in Computer Word Processing and such courses were accepted by the PSC as equivalent to the prescribed qualifications. Institute of Human Resources Development for Electronics is one among them. PSC in the subsequent notification issued, had clarified that the course in Computers conducted by the enumerated institutions for a duration of not less than three months will be accepted as an equivalent qualification. W.P.(C).12374/2008 2 2. As evidenced by Ext.P6, petitioner had completed a Part time course with necessary hands on training in Short term Practical Course on Word Processing and Data Entry Techniques at Regional Centre of IHRDE, Calicut, from 13.8.1992 to 9.10.1992. The duration of the course is obviously less than three months and therefore, normally it cannot be treated as adequate qualification. 3. But, petitioner refers to Ext.P7 communication issued by the Director of the Institute of Human Resources Development to the PSC, which reads as follows:- As per letter read above, Sri.Bijoy T.S., Tharayal (Pazhayattil) Veedu, Moothakunnam P.O., Ernakulam District, Aluva (Viia), Pin, 683516 informed that the Word Processing Certificate possessed from IHRD has been rejected by Kerala Public Service Commission, Eranakulam stating that he has not undergone the said W.P.(C).12374/2008 3 course with three months duration. In this connection, I may inform you that the short term course on Word Processing, Electronic Typewriting and Data Entry Techniques was designed by IHRD to conduct the same within a duration of 90 to 100 hours spreading over a period of three months. Sir.Bijoy T.S had studied the course conducted by IHRD at its Regional Centre, Calicut from 13.8.1992 to 9.10.1999. The course was conducted part time by granting more time slots for the candidate during the course thereby enabling to complete the course (Designed for three months) within the period covering the entire course contents. In this circumstances, I request you to examine the grievance raised by Sri.Bijoy T.S. for ascertaining the candidate's suitability for the job. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Ext.P7 that if candidates undergo a course which normally has a duration of three months but complete it in less than three months by spending more W.P.(C).12374/2008 4 number of hours per day, then, the requirements of the notification would be satisfied in such cases. He further contends that a duration of three months is prescribed with the intention of seeing that the candidates are equipped with requisite level of knowledge and not because three months period as such has any other sanctity. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, Mr.Alexander Thomas submits that original qualification prescribed was a pass in Computer Word Processing from KGTE. Other qualifications prescribed were declared to be equivalent later and the course in Computers from the IHRDE was treated as equivalent qualification. But in declaring so, Commission had insisted that the course must have a duration of not less than three months. If that be so, said requirement cannot be diluted or cannot be claimed to be otherwise satisfied by referring to the number of hours which had been spent. W.P.(C).12374/2008 5 6. Learned counsel for the PSC refers to the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3063/2008 as affirmed in W.P.(C). No.1123/2008 and W.P.(C). No.1090/2008 as well. He also refers to Ext.P5 judgment wherein this Court considered the question as to whether PSC could insist that a qualification by way of a course in Computer Word Processing or Computers as such should nevertheless be a full time course and not a part time course. It was made clear in Ext.P5 judgment that since the notification does not draw the distinction between a full time course and a part time course, but placed emphasis only on the duration of course, additional requirements cannot be imported thereon by the PSC. 7. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am not in a position to find any error in the stand taken by the PSC. Qualification originally prescribed was a pass in Computer Word Processing. PSC took a general W.P.(C).12374/2008 6 decision to declare certain qualifications as equivalent. They were not obliged to do so. But nevertheless, they decided that a course in Computers as offered by certain enumerated institutions including the IHRDE will be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. But this was conditional on the duration of the course being not less than three months. Once, therefore, the equivalent qualification is prescribed and the duration of the course is made part of the said equivalent qualification, candidate cannot claim to satisfy the requirements otherwise than in accordance with the conditions in the notification itself. It may be a case where actually the candidate has spent more number of hours, in a course which otherwise may have a duration of three months. But the question is whether PSC can consider itself obliged to look into those different aspects relatable to one of the courses and then decide that the requirements are satisfied in one particular case and therefore, candidate must be treated as qualified. I am not in a position to find that PSC is obliged to do so; if a W.P.(C).12374/2008 7 prescription of three months is incorporated as part of the notification declaring certain qualifications as equivalent, then PSC is entitled to insist fulfillment of the requirements, In that view of the matter I do not find my way to issue any direction to the PSC. Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs