IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38017 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- UMADEVI P.C., `JAYA MANDIRAM', KODOOR, VENKODE P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 38017 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T I heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.A. Mohammed Nazir and the learned standing counsel for the P.S.C. Mr. Alexander Thomas. Petitioner applied for the post of L.D. Typist in various Departments. One of the qualifications prescribed is Computer Word Processing. There is no dispute as to the other qualifications prescribed, as per Exhibit P4 notification. Petitioner’s contention is that she had completed three months course under the Continuing Education Programme in MS Office from the Government Polytechnic for Women, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. Though this is not mentioned in the original notification, the PSC had subsequently published a list of 13 institutions the courses offered by which, Computer Word Processing are treated as equivalent qualification. Learned standing counsel for the PSC submits that the institution from which the petitioner is said to have completed the course in MS Office is one of the enumerated W.P ( C) No. 38017 of 2007 2 institutions. The dispute is whether the duration of the course completed by the petitioner is three months . Though Exhibit P5 was not clear in this respect, according to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, it was clarified in the Course Certificate issued by the Principal of the Government Polytechnic for Women, Trivandrum. 2. In my view, the matter requires reconsideration by the PSC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, a rejection memo has been served on the petitioner and the same has been produced as Exhibit P10 along with I.A No.773 of 2008. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to reconsider whether the petitioner is adequately qualified, in terms of Exhibit P4 notification read with clarification in Exhibit P6, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 38017 of 2007 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 38017 of 2007 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007