Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Thulasi B.Nair on 3 July, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 178 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 IN OA NO.1789 OF 2017 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE.
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, KERALA
BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
THULASI B.NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O.GOPAKUMAR, RESIDING AT NANDANANM HOUSE,
KODUNGOOR, VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM,
KERALA-686 504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON 03.07.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT).No.178 of 2020
2
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & S.MANU, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT)No.178 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2024
JUDGMENT
S.MANU, J.
Kerala Public Service Commission is challenging the
order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.No.1789/2017, in this Original Petition.
2. The KPSC invited applications for selection to the
post of Junior Instructor (Dairying) in Industrial Training
Department vide Annexure-A1 notification dated
15.11.2012. Qualifications prescribed for the post in
Annexure-A1 are extracted below:-
"6. Qualifications:
1) Pass in S.S.L.C or its equivalent qualification.
AND
2) (a) National Trade Certificate in the concerned
trade with three years experience in the
trade after obtaining the certificate.
OR
(b) National Apprenticeship Certificate in
the concerned trade with one year
experience after obtaining the certificate.
OR
(c) Diploma in the concerned branch of
Engineering from a Government or
Government Recognized polytechnic
or its equivalent qualification.
Note:(i) The experience gained by a Workshop
Attender in the trade can also be deemed to be
qualifying experience in the trade for selection to
this post.
(ii) Candidates belonging to SC/ST will be exempted
from the qualification of experience prescribed in
2 (a) and (b) above.
(iii) The certificate to be produced in proof of
experience shall be in the form given below."
3. The respondent applied in response to
Annexure-A1 notification. She attended the objective type
OMR test held on 23.5.2014 and was included in the short
list published on 04.02.2016. During the detailed scrutiny of
applications of candidates included in the short list the
respondent was found ineligible by the KPSC. The
qualification of the respondent, B.SC. in Food Science and
Quality Control offered by Mahatma Gandhi University was
not considered as an equivalent qualification as mentioned
in Annexure-A1. By Annexure-A4 letter dated 9.10.2015, the
respondent was called upon to produce Government
order/equivalency certificate to the effect that her
qualification is equivalent to diploma in the concerned
branch of Engineering. The respondent obtained a certificate
from the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University
dated 30.10.2015 and produced it in response to Annexure-
A4 letter. The certificate is produced as Annexure-A6 in the
original application. However, the Academic Committee of
the Commission found that the qualification cannot be
accepted as equivalent. Therefore, the respondent was not
called for the interview. Then she approached the Tribunal.
In the O.A. she prayed for direction to permit her to
participate in the selection process and include her in the
rank list.
4. The KPSC resisted the O.A. by filing reply
statement. The Commission contended that the respondent
failed to produce equivalency certificate within the time
granted. The Academic Committee constituted by the
Commission in its meeting held on 22.2.2017 considered the
issue and suggested not to consider the qualification of the
respondent as sufficient for the post. The suggestion of the
Committee was approved by the Chairman of the
Commission on 23.2.2017. It was also contended that
Annexure-A6 certificate produced by the respondent was
from the Registrar of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal
Science University and that the certificate only stated that
the syllabi of B.Sc. in Food Science and Quality Control and
that of Diploma in Dairy Science are comparable. PSC
pointed out that the University did not say that the former
qualification is equivalent to the latter.
5. In compliance with the interim order dated
15.9.2017 issued by the Tribunal the respondent was
permitted to appear for the interview held on 19.9.2017 on
provisional basis. However, her result was withheld.
6. The respondent filed a rejoinder before the Tribunal.
Along with the rejoinder she produced an order issued by
Higher Education (B) Department of the Government of
Kerala dated 04.07.2019. In the said order the Government
stated that on the basis of a report of the Member Secretary,
Kerala State Higher Education Council, the Government
have decided to order that B.Sc. Food Science and Quality
Control awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University in Regular
mode is equivalent to Diploma in Dairy Science of Kerala
Vetenary & Animal Sciences University.
7. Learned Tribunal finally heard the O.A. and allowed
it by order dated 16.10.2019. The Tribunal held that the
respondent had produced Annexure-A6 certificate issued by
the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University in
response to the notice issued by the PSC which was
sufficient to show that her qualification was equivalent to
the Diploma mentioned in Annexure-A1 notification. The
Tribunal found that the Registrar of the University had stated
that the syllabi of both courses are comparable. Tribunal
noted that the word 'comparable' in essence denotes
equivalence as per its dictionary meaning and therefore the
Commission was not right in rejecting the said certificate.
The Tribunal also noted that the Government, though at a
later point of time, issued order regarding equivalency as
claimed by the respondent. Therefore the Tribunal set aside
the decision to exclude the respondent and direct the PSC to
accept the candidature, publish her result and include her in
the ranked list published on 30.10.2017 on the basis of her
performance.
8. During the hearing of the original petition the
learned Standing Counsel for the PSC reiterated the
contentions raised before the Tribunal and argued that the
Tribunal went wrong in allowing the O.A. He cited the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Lalitha Bai v.
PSC [1999 (2) KLT 894] to canvass the proposition that
subsequent notification by Government on alternative
qualifications can have applied only to future notifications
and in selection process initiated before issuance of such
notifications by the Government candidates with alternative
qualifications cannot be included. He vehemently submitted
that Annexure-A6 certificate issued by the University cannot
be of any help to the respondent as the same did not certify
in specific terms that her course was equivalent to the
Diploma mentioned in Annexure-A1. He also submitted that
the subsequent Government Order produced as Annexure-
A13 also cannot be of any help because the said order was
issued much after publication of ranked list. Hence, he
asserted that the impugned order is illegal. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the
PSC was not justified in rejecting the candidature of the
respondent despite production of Annexure-A6 certificate.
He argued that Annexure-A6 was issued by the concerned
University and the certificate is clear in its terms regarding
the equivalency claimed by the respondent. He further
submitted that the same was later declared by the
Government also by issuing Annexure-A13. He contended
that his client has suffered injustice by rejection of her
candidature and the order issued by the Tribunal is not liable
to be set aside by this Court.
9. Apart from hearing the respective counsel we
have perused the pleadings and documents also. We are of
the view that the only controversy to be considered for
deciding this original petition is regarding the effect and
acceptability of Annexure-A6 issued by the Kerala Veterinary
and Animal Science University which was admittedly
produced before the Commission by the candidate within
time.
10. In paragraph 13 of the statement of facts in this
original petition the PSC has contended as follows:-
"13. It is submitted that as per General Conditions
Part II Para 14 "Documents in proof of prescribed
educational qualifications, date of birth,
community, experience etc. shall be produced at
the time of interview or at any time as required by
the Commission. Those who fail to produce the
original documents as required above will not be
interviewed/included in the Ranked List as the case
may be". As per Para 17 "Candidates possessing
qualifications equivalent to those prescribed for a
post shall produce in addition to the documents
referred to in Para 13 (b), sufficient proof obtained
from a University or any other competent authority
to the effect that the qualifications possessed by
him are recognized as equivalent to those
prescribed for the post". It is submitted that the
applicant failed to produce proof regarding
equivalency of her qualification as and when
required by the Commission. Further the
Annexure A6 certificate could not be accepted as
the same did not declare the impugned
qualification as equivalent to the prescribed
qualification as mentioned in Para 17 of General
Conditions."
( Emphasis added )
11. It is clear from the above paragraph of the
pleading of the Commission that the general conditions
which need to be read in conjunction with Annexure-A1
notification contained a paragraph that candidates
possessing qualifications equivalent to those prescribed
were required to produce sufficient proofs obtained from a
University or any other competent authority to the effect
that the qualifications are recognized as equivalent to those
prescribed for the post. Therefore, it is clear that paragraph
17 of the general conditions provided for production of
sufficient proof regarding equivalency issued either by a
University or any other competent authority. Hence,
production of Annexure-A6 certificate issued by the Kerala
Veterinary and Animal Science University was in sufficient
compliance with the requirement under paragraph 17 of the
general conditions. Hence, the PSC cannot take up a
contention that production of a certificate issued by the
University was inadequate or improper. Then the remaining
issue is as to whether the PSC is right in contending that
Annexure-A6 did not certify specifically that the qualification
of the respondent is equivalent to the qualification
prescribed. In this context, we find it necessary to extract
hereunder the contents of Annexure-A6 :-
"TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that on perusal the syllabus
of the course B.Sc (Food Science and Quality
Control) offered by Mahatma Gandhi University
covers the engineering subjects prescribed for the
Diploma in Dairy Science adequately and the
syllabus of both courses in the engineering subjects
are comparable and can be considered sufficient
for discharging comparable duties such as
Instructor (Dairying) in the Industrial Training
Department.
This certificate is issued to Ms.Thulasi.B.Nair,
Nandanam House. Kodungoor, Kottayam-686504
based on her request to produce the same before
the Kerala Public Service Commission as part of the
selection process for the post of Instructor
(Dairying) in the Industrial Training Department.
Sd/-
REGISTRAR
KERALA VETERINARY &
ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
POOKODE, LADDIDI.P.O., WAYANAD"
12. It is true that the word 'equivalent' is not
employed by the Registrar of the University in Annexure-A6
certificate. However, it has been specifically stated that the
syllabus of the B.Sc. course underwent by the respondent
covers the Engineering subjects prescribed for the Diploma
in Dairy Science adequately and syllabus of both courses in
the Engineering subjects are comparable. It is also stated
that the syllabus of the B.Sc. course offered by Mahatma
Gandhi University can be considered sufficient for
discharging comparable duties such as Instructor (Dairying)
in the Industrial Training Department. Reading of
Annexure-A6 as a whole does not leave any doubt regarding
the equivalence of B.Sc. Food Science and Quality Control
offered by Mahatma Gandhi University and diploma in Dairy
Science offered by Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science
University. The latter University has certified in clear terms
that the syllabus of the B.Sc. course offered by the former
University covers the Engineering subjects of its Diploma
course in Dairy Science adequately. Though the word
'equivalence' is not employed, the lucid statements in
Annexure-A6 are undoubtedly to the effect that the courses
are equivalent. Therefore, we are of the view that the
objection raised by the Commission against Annexure-A6 is
arbitrary, hyper-technical and unrealistic. PSC was
concerned about the form and not about substance, when it
examined A6 certificate. Having permitted the candidates in
the general conditions to produce certificates regarding
equivalency issued by Universities, it was unnecessary for
the Commission to refer the matter to Academic Committee
and take a different view after the candidate produced A6
certificate, which actually is a certificate of equivalency.
13. We, after a close reading of the judgment cited by
the learned Standing Counsel (Lalitha Bai v. PSC [1999 (2)
KLT 894]) are of the view that the said judgment is not
helpful to the PSC to advance its case. In the said case the
issue considered and decided is different. The Division
Bench of this Court was considering a case arising from
selection to the post of HSA Hindi. In the reported judgment
Division Bench has extracted the qualifications prescribed
for selection to the post of HSA Hindi. The exact dispute was
regarding the training qualification of the writ petitioner
therein. Certain specific training qualifications were
mentioned in the notification. Though equivalent
qualifications were permitted in the case of academic
qualifications, no such relaxation was provided in the case of
training qualifications. The petitioner in the said case had a
training qualification 'Siksha Snathak of Dhakshina Bharath
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras', which was not included in the
training qualifications in the notification inviting application.
Later, the Government issued a notification recognizing
Siksha Snathak also as an alternative qualification.
Therefore, the factual situation in the said case was that the
notification did not permit any equivalent qualification in the
case of training qualification and the training qualification
possessed by the writ petitioner was not among the
specifically prescribed training qualifications. On the other
hand, Annexure-A1 notification in the case on hand permits
equivalent qualifications also. Hence, the facts of the case
cited by the learned Standing Counsel and the present case
are totally different. Thus the conclusions of the Division
Bench in the reported judgment cannot be applied in the
present case. The PSC has referred to some other reported
judgments also in the original petition to advance the
contention that equivalency can only be of prospective
effect. In the present case Annexure-A6 certificate was
obtained by the respondent during the selection process in
response to the notice issued by the PSC and as stated
already, Annexure-A1 notification explicitly permitted those
who are having equivalent qualifications also to apply. We
have already adverted to the general conditions enabling
the candidate to produce certificate of equivalency in the
previous paragraphs. Therefore, law laid down in the
judgments pointed out for the purpose of advancing the
contention regarding prospective operation of declaration
regarding the equivalency is also inapplicable in the facts
and circumstances of this case.
14. Outcome of the above discussion is that the
conclusions of the Tribunal are proper and justified. There is
no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the order passed by
the learned Tribunal which warrants interference by this
Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227. We conclude that the Tribunal was right in allowing the
O.A.
O.P.(KAT) is hence dismissed. The Commission shall
take appropriate steps to comply with the directions issued
by the Tribunal at the earliest.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
S.MANU, JUDGE
skj
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 178/2020
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED 15.11.2012
ANNEXURE (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE
ANNEXURE (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST
NO.12/16/ERXII DATED 4/2/2016
ANNEXURE (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ER XII(3)
8748/14/EW DATED 9.10.2015
ANNEXURE (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
30.10.2015
ANNEXURE (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KVASU/ DAR/
ACAD B3/13165/15 DATED 30/10/2015
ANNEXURE (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME REGISTRATION
VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE DATED ON
17.3.2016
ANNEXURE (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW PROGRAMME FOR
THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2017
ANNEXURE (A9) TRUE COPY OF HE REPRESENTATION DATED
13/9/2019
ANNEXURE (A10) TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.3030/2018/HEDN
DATED 17.12.2018
ANNEXURE (A11) TRUE COPY OF LETTER-B2/156 /2019-HEDN
DATED 28.06.2019 FROM THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY ,
KERALA STATE HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL
DATED 28.06.2019
ANNEXURE (A12) TRUE COPY OF LETTER KSHEC-A-3/321/SLAC/
2019 FROM MEMBER SECRETARY KSHEC TO THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DATED
1.7.2019
ANNEXURE (A13) TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1137/2019/HEDN
DATED 4/7/2019
ANNEXURE (A14) TRUE COPY CERTIFICATE NO.A1/1350/2017
DATED 12.11.2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL PCTM
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.1789 OF 2017
WITH ITS ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT DATED 4/10/2018
EXHIBIT P3 REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT DATED
18.07.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2019
IN O.A.NO.189 OF 2019
