High Court Kerala High Court

Rekha.K.J. vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Rekha.K.J. vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5381 of 2009(P)


1. REKHA.K.J., AGED 32, W/O.T.V.JAGADEESHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

4. JOINT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :18/02/2009

 O R D E R
                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
         ======================================
                      W.P.(C)No.5381 OF 2009
         ======================================
             Dated this the 18th day of February 2009

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post

of Vocational Instructor – Accountancy and Auditing, a post borne

in the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Subordinate

Service. She possesses besides B.Sc Degree in Botany, Diploma in

Shorthand and Typewriting (2 year course) awarded by the Board

of Technical Examinations, Government of Kerala. By Ext.P3 letter

dated 12.11.2008, the Kerala Public Service Commission,

hereinafter referred to as the “Commission” for short, rejected the

petitioner’s application on the ground that she does not possess

the qualification prescribed for the post of Vocational Instructor –

Accountancy and Auditing. Hence this Writ Petition.

2. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Vocational

Instructor – Accountancy and Auditing in the Special Rules for the

Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service

are as follows:-

W.P.(C)No.5381 of 2009 2

Accountancy and Auditing By promotion A Degree from any of the

By transfer and by direct Universities in Kerala or

recruitment equivalent and 3 year
Diploma in Commercial
Practice from the Board of
Technical Examinations,
Kerala or an equivalent
qualification;

OR

B.Com. or B.Sc. Degree
with Co-operation and
Banking of the
Agricultural University,
Kerala or equivalent;

OR

A pass in Vocational
Higher Secondary Course
in any Commerce Group
conducted by Government
of Kerala or its equivalent
with Degree in any of the
subject awarded by any of
the Universities in Kerala
or an equivalent
qualification.

3. The petitioner does not admittedly possess a 3 year Diploma

in Commercial Practice from the Board of Technical Examinations,

Kerala or any qualification equivalent to the 3 year Diploma in

Commercial Practice. She also does not possess the first set of

alternate qualifications. The petitioner contends relying on the

third alternate set of qualifications that as the Government have

in Ext.P5 Government order dated 21.2.1987 recognized the Final

Diploma Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting conducted in

W.P.(C)No.5381 of 2009 3

Government Commercial Institutes as equivalent to KGTE (Higher

Grade) in Typewriting (English) and Shorthand (English) and as the

Government have in Ext.P4 order dated 14.5.2007, recognized a

pass in the Vocational Higher Secondary (Office Secretaryship)

course as equivalent to KGTE (Higher Grade) in Typewriting

(English), she is qualified to be appointed and therefore the

Commission erred in rejecting her application.

4. The petitioner has not admittedly passed the Vocational

Higher Secondary Course in any Commerce Group conducted by

the Government of Kerala. Her endeavour is to show that she

possesses an equivalent qualification and as she is admittedly a

graduate in Botany, she is qualified for the post, going by the

third alternate set of qualifications prescribed for the post. By

Ext.P5 order dated 21.2.1987, the Government of Kerala ordered

that the Preliminary Diploma Examination in Shorthand and

Typewriting conducted in Government Commercial Institutes will

be treated as equivalent to KGTE (Lower) in Typewriting and

Shorthand (English). The Government also ordered that the Final

Diploma Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting conducted in

Government Commercial Institutes will be treated as equivalent to

KGTE (Higher) in Typewriting and Shorthand (English). By Ext.P4

order dated 14.5.2007, the Government also ordered that a pass

W.P.(C)No.5381 of 2009 4

in the Vocational Higher Secondary (Office Secretaryship) Course

will be treated as equivalent to KGTE (Higher) in Typewriting

(English).

5. Going by Ext.P5, all that can be said is that the Diploma

awarded to the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P1 can be treated as

equivalent to KGTE (Higher) in Typewriting (English). That by itself

would not equate the qualification which she possesses to a pass

in the Vocational Higher Secondary course in any Commerce

Group. By Ext.P4, the Government only ordered that a pass in the

Vocational Higher Secondary (Office Secretaryship) Course will be

equivalent to KGTE (Higher) in Typewriting (English). The post of

Vocational Instructor in Accountancy and Auditing is category

No.2 (34) in the Special Rules for the Kerala Vocational Higher

Secondary Education Subordinate Service. The post of Vocational

Instructor (Office Secretaryship) is category No.2 (33) in the said

special rules. Therefore the posts are different and distinct. The

post for which the petitioner had applied is Vocational Instructor

in Accountancy and Auditing. Going by Ext.P4, all that the

petitioner can claim is that a pass in Vocational Higher Secondary

(Office Secretaryship) course is equivalent to KGTE (Higher) in

Typewriting (English). Even if the converse is also true, though it is

not necessary to finally pronounce upon that aspect in this Writ

W.P.(C)No.5381 of 2009 5

Petition, it would at best only make the petitioner eligible to

apply for the post of Vocational Instructor in Office Secretaryship

and not in Accountancy and Auditing. Therefore, the stand taken

by the Commission in Ext.P5 cannot be said to be arbitrary or

illegal.

For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in

this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. No costs.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

css/