IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 37430 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HELEN VALENTINE, CHRISTINA, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW ROAD, ALLEPPEY-688 012. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALEPPEY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON 29/5/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.37430 of 2008-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an applicant to the post of H.S.A. (English) for which the Public Service Commission published a notification dated 3.4.2003. She is a graduate in Chemistry and acquired Post Graduation in English Literature from Kerala University. She acquired B.Ed. degree in English from Annamalai University by distance education. 2. The petitioner was called for a written test and in accordance with the eligibility she was included in the short list of eligible candidates to be called for the interview. Accordingly, she was directed to appear for the interview as per Ext.P3. On the date of interview, she was directed to produce an equivalency certificate from any of the Universities in Kerala to prove that the B.Ed. qualification obtained by her is recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. She did not succeed in the said endeavour and thereafter submitted Ext.P4 representation before the Chairman of the Public Service Commission in the matter. By Ext.P5 communication, the Commission informed her that as the B.Ed. degree obtained by her is not one recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala, her application is not wpc 37430/2008 2 liable to be considered. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that in the light of G.O.(MS) No.526 dated 17.2.1965, the Government has specifically recognised all degrees and diplomas awarded by statutory Universities established by an Act of State or Central Legislature, the degree awarded by the Annamalai University has got automatic recognition. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala (1994 (2) KLT 537) to hold that the degrees obtained by distance education are liable to be accepted. 4. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is pointed out that going by the qualifications prescribed as per the Gazette notification, B.Ed. with English as optional subject should be one conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala and in the absence of the same, the petitioner cannot be said to be eligible. As there is no recognition for the course undergone by the petitioner from any of the Universities in Kerala and as she has failed to produce equivalency certificate in spite of giving an opportunity, the rejection of the application is perfectly justified. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P.C. Sasidharan and wpc 37430/2008 3 learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, Shri Alexander Thomas. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the principles stated by various decisions of this court in Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala (1994 (2) KLT 537), Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 680), State of Kerala v. Suja Kumari (2006 (1) KLT 846) and Public Service Commission v. Abdul Rasheed (2007 (3) KLT 881). In Mohanan Nair's case (1994 (2) KLT 537) it was held by the learned Single Judge that recognition of the qualification by the University is not relevant for the recognition of qualifications by the Government. The Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Suja Kumari(2006 (1) KLT 846) relied upon the above decision. In Mujeeb Rahman's case (2005 (1)KLT 680), the relevant rule considered is Special Rules for the Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service Rules, 2001. It was found by the Bench that the said rules makes no distinction between M.A. Degree obtained through regular course of study and through distance education. The Rule only stipulates that M.A. Degree recognised as equivalent by any of the Universities in the State of Kerala. Accordingly, it was held that the Public Service Commission is bound to treat the candidates who have obtained M.A. Degree through wpc 37430/2008 4 regular course as well as those who have obtained M.A. Degree through correspondence course as equal provided the qualification has been recognised by any of the Universities in the State of Kerala. In the last of the decisions in Public Service Commission's case (2007 (3) KLT 881), it was held that the Public Service Commission cannot weed out candidates who had not undergone course in 10+2+3 pattern or not obtained degree through regular course of study. Therein also it was noticed by this Court that the appointing authority has no case that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification. 7. In this case, it is relevant to consider the scope of the qualification that is fixed which is revealed from the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission. The required qualification is B.Ed./BT/LT with English as optional subject conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. Therefore, if the qualification acquired by the petitioner from Annamalai University had been recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala, that would have been sufficient. But there is no material to show that the qualification acquired by the Petitioner has been recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. Even though the petitioner was offered an opportunity by the Commission to produce equivalency wpc 37430/2008 5 certificate from any of the Universities in Kerala, she has not produced the same from any of the Universities. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon Ext.P8 which is the copy of the Govt. Order dated 17.7.1965. Sub para 2 of the same is relevant here which is in the following terms: “(ii) Other Degrees and Diploma awarded by statutory Universities established by an Act of the Central or State Legislature or by other Institutions of higher learning recognised as Universities by the Central University Grants Commission, should be recognised.” Going by the same, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a declaration that the degrees awarded by statutory Universities should be recognised and the Annamalai University herein being one covered under an enactment, the same is liable to be recognised. 8. Going by the qualification fixed, it should be one recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. Ext.P8 also is specific that the qualification should be recognised. Recognition of a qualification is by exercise of a statutory power vested in the concerned University. There are fixed procedures as per the statute and regulations issued in the matter. Academic bodies entrusted with the said statutory functions will have to assess various aspects and then take a decision whether the University wpc 37430/2008 6 should grant recognition or not. Since such a statutory exercise is required to be followed, there cannot be any automatic recognition for the B.Ed. degree of the Annamalai University. Therefore, in the absence of a recognition granted by any one of the Universities in Kerala, the petitioner cannot contend for the position that the B.Ed. degree obtained by her should be treated as one recognised by the Universities in Kerala. In that view of the matter, the said argument also cannot be accepted. The principles stated in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, regarding the acceptability of a Degree awarded by distance education, are therefore not applicable to the facts of this case. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/