Writ petitioners questioned rejection due to qualification mismatch. Court noted Government recognized Diploma as equivalent to KGTE higher grades and lower English grades, butRules did not cover Malayalam lower grades.Petition dismissed with direction to amend Rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/16TH ASWINA, 1937
W.P.(C).No.15952 of 2014 (T)
PETITIONER(S):-
BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM.
RESPONDENT(S):
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
W.P.(C).NO.15952 OF 2014-T
- 2 -
R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH. R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.15952 of 2014 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1: | COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P1a: | COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION. |
| EXT.P2: | COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS OF KERALA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P2a: | COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS OF KERALA TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P2b: | COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS OF KERALA TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P2c: | COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS OF KERALA TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P3: | COPY OF THE CURRICULUM DETAILS OF THE DIPLOMA COURSE. |
| EXT.P4: | COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GORT. 464/87.H.EDN. DTD.21.2.87. |
| EXT.P5: | COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5a: | COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P5b: | COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P5c: | COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P5d: | COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. |
- 2 -
WP(C).No.15952 of 2014 (T)
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE MAIN LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8b: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL YEAR MARK LIST OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P8c: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL YEAR MARK LIST OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12.1.07. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ONE OF THEIR DISTRICT OFFICERS.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-
EXT.R1(a) TRUE EXTRACT/RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE RULES PRESCRIBING QUALIFICATION FOR THE POST OF STENOGRAPHER.
ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt).NO.21/2003/H.EDN. DATED 01.01.2003.
ANNEXURE R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt).NO.464/87/H.EDN. DATED 21.02.1987.
vku/[ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J
---------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.15952 of 2014-T
Dated this the 08th day of October, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioners project a genuine grievance before this
Court, with respect to the petitioners' qualification not being considered for selection under Exhibit P1 notification.
Recruitment Rules of the respondent-Corporation, at Exhibit P1 (a). The post notified was Stenographer. The qualifications for the said post were as follows:
The petitioners have graduation from recognized University and a Diploma in Secretarial Practice. The Diploma in Secretarial Practice is a course which was earlier conducted as Diploma in Typewriting and Shorthand, as is noticed in Exhibit P3 order of the Government in G.O.(Rt) No.1852/2006/H.Edn. Dated 06.12.2006.
WP(C).No.15952 of 2014
which it is indicated so:
The Government treated the Diploma Examinations in Shorthand and Typewriting to be equivalent to the KGTE Examinations higher grade of Typewriting (English) and Shorthand (English) and also to the lower grades of Typewriting (Malayalam) and Shorthand (Malayalam). The difficulty arose insofar as the Recruitment Rules provide for an equivalent qualification only in Typewriting (English) Higher and Shorthand (English) Higher. For Malayalam (Lower), in Typewriting and Shorthand the Recruitment Rules does not provide for any equivalent qualification.
WP(C).No.15952 of 2014 - 3 -
K.P.S.C. [2011(1) KLT 1 (FB)] had considered the issue and found that it is not for the PSC to recognize a different qualification from that provided in the Recruitment Rules; as an equivalent qualification. There, the selection was to the post of Junior Scientific Officer, governed by the Kerala Chemical Examiner's Laboratory Service Special Rules, 1997. The Special Rules provided for a Masters Degree with 50% marks in Chemistry or Forensic Science or Bio-Chemistry. The PSC recognised a Masters Degree in Applied Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry as an equivalent qualification. The rejection of the PSC hence, is proper, is the contention.
WP(C).No.15952 of 2014 - 4 -
equivalent qualification to the reckoned with respect to Malayalam Lower-Typewriting and Shorthand. If the qualification was recognised as a higher one, the PSC could have reckoned it. Though the petitioners contend that the Course is more comprehensive than KGTE; the Government has treated it only as an equivalent qualification.
their claim by the PSC, going by the Full Bench decision afore-cited. The fact that the qualification of the petitioners is equivalent to that provided in the notification and the Rules cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners for reason only of the Rules having not provided reckoning of an equivalent qualification for the specific subject afore-mentioned. Further, the list has already been published and none are impleaded herein.
genuine and since the Government has recognised the course as
WP(C).No.15952 of 2014
equivalent, it is only proper that the 1st respondent take steps to amend the Rules and provide for an equivalent qualification in the
case of Typewriting and Shorthand in Malayalam Lower or
incorporate the specific qualification which the petitioners have.
The writ petition would stand dismissed; however with
the above observation.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners' Diploma qualification can be treated as equivalent to KGTE Malayalam Lower Typewriting and Shorthand under recruitment rules lacking such provision.
Whether the Public Service Commission could recognize further equivalent qualifications beyond those already defined in the Recruitment Rules.
Dilna.B.
Beneesha Kumari V.P.
Sreevidya K.
Jishi.K.
Managing Director, Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd.
Kerala Public Service Commission
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
