IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1580 of 2008(K)
1. SUNITHA N.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. THE SECRETARY,
4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
5. CHAIRMAN-CUM-DIRECTOR,
6. THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
7. THE CHAIRMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :14/01/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).1580/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied for the post of Lower Division
Typist in various departments in Thiruvananthapuram
District as per the notification dated 31.12.2005. The
qualifications prescribed for the said post are the
following:-
(i). S.S.L.C or its equivalent
(ii). Lower Grade Certificate in K.G.T.E.
Malayalam Typewriting.
(iii). Lower Grade Certificate in K.G.T.E
English Typewriting and Computer word
processing or its equivalent (G.O.(P)
No.19/04 P & ARD dated 8.12.04)
(iv). Those who have passed K.G.T.E
Typewriting before January, 2002 should
produce separate Certificate in computer
word processing or its equivalent.
There is no dispute that the petitioner has passed
W.P.(C).1580/2008
2
K.G.T.E Malayalam Typewriting and K.G.T.E English
typewriting (Lower). Dispute is only whether the
petitioner has also acquired a qualification in Computer
word processing in its equivalent. Petitioner refers to
Ext.P2(d) which is the certificate dated 16.10.2002,
evidencing the fact that she had attended a DTP course
conducted by the Block Panchayat of the Saksharatha
Samithi, under the State Literacy Mission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
per Ext.P11 clarification issued by the PSC, they had
declared that certain courses offered by certain
institutions will be treated as equivalent to the
prescribed qualification of course in Computer Word
Processing. Petitioner had approached this Court
earlier challenging the rejection memo issued by the
PSC. Petitioner’s claim was rejected as evidenced by
Ext.P13 judgment. It was also noted therein that the
petitioner had not independently challenged Ext.P11
clarification issued by the PSC.
W.P.(C).1580/2008
3
Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.2825/2007
against Ext.P13 judgment. Same was disposed of under
Ext.P15 judgment, directing the PSC to consider
“Annexures-A1 and A2, Ext.P6, P6(a) and P10” and to
take a decision whether the qualification possessed by
the petitioner is equivalent to that of Computer Word
processing.
Petitioner produced the aforementioned
documents before the PSC. PSC considered the
petitioner’s claim and rejected it under Ext.P17 holding
that the course in DTP offered by the Block Panchayat
of the Saksharatha Samithi is not equivalent
qualification as declared by the PSC. Therefore, they
are unable to accept the same. Ext.P17 is under
challenge in this writ petition.
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC.
W.P.(C).1580/2008
4
From a perusal of the writ petition, I also find that
the petitioner has challenged Ext.P11 which is the
clarification issued by the PSC. In so far as the
challenge against Ext.P11 is concerned, I am of the
view that the petitioner’s claim in that regard is
misconceived. Admittedly petitioner does not possess
the prescribed qualification. Petitioner can have a case
only if she possesses a qualification which is equivalent.
It is only under Ext.P11 that certain qualifications have
been declared as equivalent to the prescribed
qualification, by the PSC. If the petitioner’s challenge
against Ext.P11 is accepted, petitioner also loses a
chance of contending that she possesses a qualification
which could be considered as equivalent to the
prescribed qualification. Moreover, several persons who
might have been benefited from Ext.P11 clarification
are not parties to the present writ petition.
Once Ext.P11 is treated as valid, further question is
W.P.(C).1580/2008
5
whether the petitioner possesses the qualification which
can be considered as equivalent to that of the prescribed
qualification. Certificate relied on in this regard by the
petitioner is Ext.P2(d), which shows that she has
completed a course in Desk Top Printing offered by the
Aryad Block Panchayath. Learned counsel for the
petitioner refers to Ext.P14 to show that the syllabus of
the course offered by the District Literacy Mission
would include M.S.Word, and Computer fundamentals.
This therefore, must be treated as a qualification which
is considered as equivalent to that of the prescribed
qualification, it is contended. This Court will be
reluctant to undertake any exercise which will include
a subjective verification of whether a course offered by
an institution or an agency is similar in content to that
contained in the prescribed qualification. PSC, in
exercise of its powers had issued a clarification
enumerating certain institutions, the courses offered
by which are treated as equivalent to the prescribed
qualification. Unfortunately for the petitioner a course
W.P.(C).1580/2008
6
in Desk Top Printing offered by the Saksharatha
Mission is not one of the enumerated items in Ext.P11.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
directions in Ext.P15 judgment was to the PSC to
consider the documents of the petitioner and to take a
decision whether the qualification possessed by the
appellant (petitioner) is equivalent to that of Computer
Word Processing. He submits that a perusal of Ext.P17
will show that the said aspect has not been correctly
understood or appreciated by the PSC. I am not in a
position to accept the same. Ext.P17 will show that PSC
considered the certificate produced by the petitioner and
also noted that a course in DTP offered by the Literacy
Mission is not one of the qualifications treated as
equivalent, in the clarification issued by the PSC.
Therefore, PSC expressed its disinclination to accept
the said certificate and treat it as a sufficient
qualification. Essentially PSC went by the list of
enumerated qualifications treated as equivalent to the
W.P.(C).1580/2008
7
prescribed qualification. They considered the course
undertaken by the petitioner and found that it is not one
of the enumerated courses. I am not in a position to
accept the submission that there is inadequate
compliance of the directions in Ext.P15 judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in N.T.Devin katti
and Others v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission and Others (1990 (3) SCC 157) to
contend her position that there is a vested right
available to the petitioner to be considered in terms of
the qualification prescribed as per the rules, in terms of
the advertisement inviting applications. It is true that
the assessment of the qualification must be with
reference to the prescription contained in the
notification. But in the present case, PSC had, even in
Ext.P1 notification reserved unto itself a power to treat
certain qualifications as equivalent. It is accordingly
that Ext.P11 was issued. In fact earlier declaration
W.P.(C).1580/2008
8
made by the PSC on 15.12.2006 was considered by this
Court in Writ Petition No.12356/2007 and upheld. The
same principle would apply in the case of Ext.P11
also. Moreover, as noted by me, the plea of the
petitioner to consider her case is rested on the
continued existence of Ext.P11 and therefore,
challenge against Ext.P11 at the instance of the
petitioner is misconceived.
For all these reasons, writ petition is bereft of
merit and the same is dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs