IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2298 of 2008(W)
1. MAYA B.NAIR, SANTHA SADANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :14/02/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C). 2298,2643,3532,802,2664,2926,2445,3593 &
4452 of 2008
--------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
Common issues arise for consideration in all these
writ petitions. On consent of parties, the writ petitions
were taken up for hearing and they have been heard
together and are disposed of by a common judgment.
Counter affidavits have been filed by the PSC in
some cases. Copies of the same have been served on the
counsel appearing in the other cases with an adoption
memo. W.P.(C)s.3532/2008, 2643/2008 and 2926/2008
have been referred to for the purpose of referring to the
documents which have been placed on record.
PSC by a notification dated 31.12.2005, (Ext.P1 in
W.P.(C).3532/2008), invited applications for the post of
L.D.Typist in various departments. Qualifications
prescribed for the post are as follows:-
Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English
Typewriting and Computer Word
Processing or its equivalent.
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 2
The controversy in these cases is centred around
the last among the qualifications, ie, Computer Word
Processing or its equivalent. By Ext.P17 order dated
15.12.2006, PSC declared that the courses with duration
of not less than three months conducted by Central/State
Government Departments, Government Agencies,
Government Societies or Universities and a certificate in
Computer Word Processing issued there upon, will be
treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in
terms of Rule 13(b) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. By
Ext.P18 communication dated 30.7.2007, further
expatiation was made by the Commission, by
enumerating certain institutions as competent to offer
the courses, which are eligible to be treated as
equivalent qualification by the PSC for the post in
question. 13 institutions are enumerated therein. LBS
Centre for Science and Technology and IHRDE are two
of the enumerated institutions. Apparently, both these
are recognised by the Government of Kerala. They are
treated as Government of Kerala undertaking. Clause 2
of Ext.P18 states that the certificates issued by the
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 3
enumerated institutions will be accepted as sufficient
qualification only if they have a course duration of not
less than three months. Petitioners participated in the
written test and subsequently they were included in the
short list and when they were called for the interview
they had produced the certificates evidencing the
qualifications possessed by them. The qualification
relating to Computer Word Processing in the case of the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.3532/2008 is evidenced
by Exts.P4 and P8. Apparently, PSC took the stand that
though the courses undergone by the petitioners are
from a recognised institution, forming one of the
enumerated institutions in Ext.P18, nevertheless the
course is a part time one and therefore, the
qualification cannot be treated as an equivalent
qualification in terms of Exts.P17 and P18.
This is a stand which is common to all the writ
petitions. Another common feature in all these cases is
that the petitioners have participated in the course which
is offered by LBS or by IHRDE. In all these cases
certificates also show that the course undergone by the
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 4
respective petitioners is a part time course.
Reference will also have to be made in this regard
to a further certificate issued by the Director of IHRDE
and Assistant Director of LBS certifying that, in the case
of LBS, the syllabus of the courses enumerated therein,
will include topics in Computer Word Processing, theory
and practical (Ext.P13 in W.P.(C).2664/2008), and in the
case of IHRDE, the Joint Director or in one case, the
Director, went on to certify that the short term course
on Word Processing, Electronic Typewriting and Data
Entry Techniques was designed by IHRDE to conduct
the same within a duration of 90 to 100 hours spread
over a period of three months (Ext.P7 in W.P.(C).
2643/2008).
The case urged is that the petitioners in these writ
petitions have undergone a course in either Computer
Word Processing or certain allied courses which included
a topic in Computer Word Processing as well and that
the course duration was not less than three months.
Thus going by the institution which has offered the
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 5
course and also going by the duration of the course
successfully completed by the petitioners, they satisfied
the requirement in the order issued by the PSC on
15.12.2006 under Rule 13(b) and the subsequent
clarification issued on 30.7.2007.
I also consider it appropriate to refer in this context
to a communication which was issued by the Secretary of
the PSC to the District Officers, on 29.6.2006 (Ext.P8 in
W.P.(C).802/2008). Apparently, this was intended to
intimate the District Offices that candidates possessing
the following qualifications may also be treated as
eligible to participate in the examination to be conducted
by the PSC for the post of L.D.Typist in various
departments.
(i).Diploma in Commercial practice by the
Board of Technical Examination.
(ii).PGDCA by the Board of Technical
Examination.
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 6
(iii).Diploma in Computer applications
issued by the LBS.
(iv). Certificate issued by the LBS in Data
Entry and Office Automation.
(v). National Trade certificate in Data
preparation and Computer Software.
(vi). Certificate issued by the LBS in Data
Entry and Software.
(vii). Secretarial practice in the
Government Commercial institute.
Obviously, when a clarification is issued by the
Commission on 30.7.2007, as to the enumerated
institutions, they must have taken into account the
communication dated 29.6.2006 as well.
The question for consideration, which arises as a
common issue in all these cases is whether the course
which is undergone by the petitioners either in
Computer Word Processing or in allied course, should
necessarily be a full time course, or whether a part time
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 7
course would also be sufficient for the purpose of the
notification in question.
PSC in their counter affidavit have taken a specific
stand that going by the order issued by the Commission
under Rule 13(b) of Part-II of K.S & S.S.R and the
subsequent clarification issued on 30.7.2007 as also the
further communication issued by the Commission on
11.9.2007, it is clear that only a full time course was in
the contemplation of the Commission when it declared
certain qualifications as equivalent. The short question
is whether it is so.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that
the description as contained in the order issued by the
Commission under Rule 13(b) will have to be treated as
conclusive. It is contended that all that is mentioned
therein is that the candidate must have completed a
course having duration of not less than three months
conducted by the Central/State Government
Departments, Agencies, Societies and Universities and
should have been issued a certificate for the said course
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 8
in Computer Word Processing. What is crucial therein is
that the course must have been offered by the
institutions which are accredited or recognized by the
Government or by Governmental agencies as such.
What is further crucial is that the course must have had a
minimum duration of three months. So also when Ext.P8
communication was issued on 30.7.2007, reference is
made to the enumerated institutions including LBS and
IHRDE. Reference is also made to the duration of the
courses as requiring a minimum of three months. There
is no reference to the nature of the course being either
part time or full time even in the clarification dated
30.7.2007.
Learned Standing Counsel, Mr.Alexander Thomas,
on the other hand contends that where the Commission
had issued an order under Rule 13(b) declaring certain
qualifications as equivalent and had also mentioned that
the course duration must not be less than three months,
the intention is clear, that the course must have been a
regular course and not a part time course.
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 9
I have considered the wording in the order issued
by the PSC under Rule 13(b). Subsequent clarification
issued on 30.7.2007 should be considered in conjunction
with the order under Rule 13(b). There is no
inconsistency between the two. What is apparently
discernible there from are two major features. Firstly,
the course must have been offered by either a
Government Department or a Society or an Agency
which is accredited to a Government Department or
otherwise treated as Government undertaking.
Certificates produced by the petitioners in all these cases
admittedly satisfy this requirement. Second aspect is
that the course undergone by the applicant must have
had a duration of not less than three months. I think it is
significant that the Commission did not specify that the
course must also be a regular course as distinguished
from a part time course, in their order issued under Rule
13(b) or in the subsequent clarification issued on
30.7.2007. I also think it is worthwhile to presume that
the Commission had before it the Course content of all
the institutions and the courses offered by them and it is
thereafter, that they chose to declare that the equivalent
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 10
qualification must be that which is offered by certain
enumerated institutions. Obviously, it was competent
for the Commission to include a further stipulation that
the course should not only have a duration of not less
than three months but should also be a regular course
and not a part time course. No such stipulation is
discernible from the order under Rule 13(b) or
subsequent communication dated 30.7.2007. If that be
so, I do not think it appropriate to infer an additional
condition, over and above what is expressly enumerated
under Rule 13(b).
Mr.Alexander Thomas contends that the view taken
by the PSC that the course undertaken by the candidate
must have been a full time course as distinguished from
a part time course, is a plausible view and this Court, in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution should
be reluctant to substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of
the Commission. As a matter of law, this argument is
impeccable but it is to be noted that the challenge to
the action taken by the Commission is not on the ground
of competence of the Commission to declare a
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 11
qualification as equivalent under Rule 13(b), but on the
ground that the rejection of the application of the
petitioners is unwarranted even going by the order
issued by the Commission under Rule 13(b) read with its
own clarification issued on 30.7.2007. In other words,
the question is whether the rejection of the petitioners’
application is illegal in the context of the stand adopted
by the Commission itself while exercising power under
Rule 13(b) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. In that view of the
matter, I am of the opinion, that the stand taken by the
Commission that the part time course offered by the
institutions enumerated in clarification dated 30.7.2007
should not be treated as sufficient for the purpose of
equivalent qualification, is not justified, warranted or
sustainable. Consequently the said action is liable to be
interfered with.
Mr.Alexander Thomas refers to a subsequent
communication issued by the PSC on 11.9.2007, which to
an extent is a verbatim re-production of the
communication dated 30.7.2007. The Commission also
issued a caveat in the communication dated 11.9.2007 to
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 12
the effect that all those courses and qualifications which
are enumerated therein should have been acquired after
successful completion of the course of a duration of not
less than three months otherwise than on an hourly
basis. He submits that except a course which is offered
on a regular basis, all the other courses will have to be
treated as on hourly basis. Consequently part time
course cannot be accepted. But I find it difficult to
accept this for more than one reason. Firstly, though
Commission is obviously having the power of clarifying
any aspect which is covered by its order issued under
Rule 13(b) of the General Rules, such clarification
cannot be inconsistent with what is expressly provided
for in the order. As I had noted above, the order issued
under Rule 13(b) refers to only two major features. One
is the nature of the institution which offers a course and
the other is the duration of the course. Third element as
a condition as such is not contemplated therein. In that
view, the condition in Ext.P11 in Writ Petition
No.2643/2008 will have to be read as subject to the order
issued under Rule 13(b). Since the order under Rule 13
(b) does not specifically exclude a part time course, I
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 13
deem it appropriate and reasonable to construe that the
stipulation contained in Ext.P11 has not excluded the
part time course as such.
The second aspect in this regard is the fact that
Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).2643/2008 has been issued after
conduct of the examination, in all these cases. No doubt
clarification issued on 30.7.2007 would also be
subsequent to the examination. But as I have mentioned
above, the stand taken by the PSC will have to be
judged with reference to its own order issued under Rule
13(b) and not with reference to any subsequent
clarification or a communication issued by the PSC. I
am unable to accept this contention of the learned
counsel also.
In the light of the above, writ petitions are allowed
in part. It is declared that non inclusion of the
petitioners in the rank list on the ground that the course
undertaken by them in Computer Word Processing or
allied qualifications is a part time course is illegal and
unsustainable. PSC shall consider the certificates
W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and
Connected Cases 14
relatable to each one of these petitioners afresh without
reference to the question as to whether the course is
part time course or not, in the light of the observations
made above. Petitioners shall be included in the rank
list either by issuance of a revised rank list or by an
addendum notification assigning them the due place in
the rank list. Needful shall be done within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs