Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Meenu G on 14 February, 2020
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1973 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1461/2019(G) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MEENU G., AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. GEETHA, SREE PADMAM, MARVEL F-7, KULATHARA,
KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LTD (SUPPLY CO), REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, P. B. NO. 2030, MAVELI
BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 020.
3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.T PRADEEP(BY ORDER)
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER(BY ORDER)
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
SR.GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2020, ALONG
WITH WA.1393/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-02-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..2..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1393 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7281/2018(I) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ANUSREE.S.S., W/O. PRAKASAN N. S., ANUSREE BHAVAN,
UDIYANKULANGARA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT - 695 132.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
SUPPLYCO, P. B.NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR,
KOCHI - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHARIMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIED DEPARTMENT IN KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 PRINCIPAL, AMRUTHA SCHOOL OF PHARMACY, AMRITHA
VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM UNIVERSITY, AIMS HEALTH SCIENCES
CAMPUS, AIMS PONEKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -
682 041.
R2 BY SRI. R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN (B/O.)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-02-
2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..3..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1449 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7284/2018(I) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHBAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 VIDHU VINCENT, W/O.ROBIN JOHN.K., KAREKKATTU
HOUSE, PANJIPALLA, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-690544
2 DIVYA.T.A., W/O.KIRAN.C.C, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE,
KAVEED.P.O., KOTTAPPADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680505
3 NEETHU.M.R., D/O.RAJAN.M.K., MEPPULLYTHAZHATH
HOUYSE, MUMA NAGAR, STREET NO.6, KOLAZHY.P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680010.
4 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
SUPPLYCO, P.B.NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAI8RMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECGTOR.
5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM-695001
6 CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR-CALICUT ROAD,
THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-683594,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..4..
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY ADV. SRI K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS (B/O)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS (B/O)
R4 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (B/O)
R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN (B/O).
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-
02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..5..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1491 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40355/2018(T) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SOUMYA S.S., AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.SURENDRAN.G,
A.S.MANDIRAM, MANAVARI, KOTTAKKAL.P.O,
THKIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695124.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATON LTD.
SUPPLYCO P.B.NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVENMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS (B/O)
R2 BY SRI. R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, SC (B/O)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-
02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..6..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1492 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41439/2018(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TENCY K.T., AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. TITUS K.A., KALLARAKKAL
HOUSE, KRISHNAKOTTA P.O., MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
690733.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
(SUPPLYCO), P.B. NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY SRI. R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN (B/O)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER(B/O)
R4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2020, ALONG
WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-02-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..7..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1506 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31170/2018(U) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER, PATTOM
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 JASMIN.K
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. S. RAHUMATHULLA, TC 46/17, PALLI STREET,
POONTHURA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026
2 THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
LTD,
(SUPPLYCO), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, P.B. NO. 2030, MAVELI BHAVAN ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020
3 KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MNV G ADIYODI,
MEMORIAL PHARMACY BHAVAN, RED CROSS ROAD,
VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..8..
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R3 BY ADV. SOORAJ ELENJICKAL(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..9..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1519 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18868/2018(G) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 NIMMY DAS.K.M.
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. K. G. MOHANDAS, KOZHAMPURATH HOUSE,
PUDUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 301.
2 KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,
SUPPLYCO, P.B.NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
4 CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
THRISSUR - CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 683 594, REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGISTRAR.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..10..
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..11..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1934 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7282/2018(I) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ASHITHA.K.S
W/O MANU.P,KALARICKAL HOUSE,NEELAMPEROOR,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-686534.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
LTD.SUPPLYCO
P.B.NO.2030,MAVELI BHAVAN,GANDHINAGAR,KOCHI-
682020,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN
KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
THAVAKKARA,CIVIL STATION.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670002,REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..12..
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS (B/O)
R2 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, SC (B/O) AND
SRI.T.B.GAFOOR
R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER FOR R-3(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..13..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2228 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 233/2019(D) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SANGEETHA V.S.
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. SUNDARESAN J, VALIYAVILA PUTHENVEEDU,
KULAKODE, ANAVOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
124.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD
(SUPPLYCO)
P.B. NO. 2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..14..
4 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS (B/O)
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR (B/O)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (B/O)
R4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..15..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2281 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7283/2018(I) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SULTHANA ABDUL AZEEZ,
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED FISAL, KOCHALATH HOUSE,
PUNNAKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM- 690544.
2 SULFATH K.,
W/O.NIYAS, DARUSSALAM, KAMBI VALAPPU,
KAKKAZHOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688005.
3 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,
SUPPLCO P.B.NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..16..
5 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS FOR R1 AND
R2. (B/O)
R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS FOR R1 AND
R2.
R3 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC (B/O.)
R3 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R5 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..17..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2286 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41653/2018(F) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 BINITHA M.B.,
AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI G.,
THEKKEMADPPALLIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686026.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD
(SUPPLYCO),
P.B. NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..18..
4 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMMED HARIS (B/O)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..19..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2310 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41256/2018(F) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ATHULYA DAS K.,
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. HARIDAS K., KUTTIPPAYI
HOUSE, THOTTIPPAL P.O., PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680310.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,
(SUPPLYCO), P.B. NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
4 CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
THRISSUR CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT-683594, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..20..
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER(B/O)
R4 BY ADV. P.C.SASIDHARAN(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..21..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2322 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40321/2018(M) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ROSHINI K.V
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. RATNAKARAN P.K., EDAKKAT KANDIYIL HOSUE,
KANNADIKKAL, VENGERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673
010.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD
(SUPPLYCO)
P.B.NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI-682 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..22..
4 CALICUT UNIVERSITY
THRISSUR CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT-683 594, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.GAFOOR (B/O)
R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER (B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..23..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2378 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1959/2019(T) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ANCY M. DAS,
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. DEVADASAN T., B.S. BHAVAN,
KAZHIVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DSITRICT-695526.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,
(SUPPLYCO), P.B. NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-685020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
4 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..24..
R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
R2 BY SRI. T.B.GAFOOR, SC, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, (SUPPLYCO)
R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..25..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.164 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7281/2018(I) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 BABITHA BOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, THAMMANDIL HOUSE,
POST TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682
103.
2 NOBY C.P., POONTHOTTATHIL, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT - 673 611.
3 MANOJ KUMAR J. G., PC8/1453, ANANDABHAVAN,
THIRUMALA, POST ARAYALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695 001.
4 RAVITHA L., RAVITHALAYAM, CHITTAYAM, PANAYAM
P. O., KOLLAM - 691 601.
5 SHYNI SOMAN S. R., SHYNI BHAVAN, KULAKODU, P.
O. VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695543.
6 SANDHYA S., PUTHUVALPUTHANVEEDU, MADHAVAPURAM,
TITANIUM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695021.
7 NITHYA P. V., POYILMEETHAL, KAYANNA BAZAR,
KOZHIKODE - 673525.
8 SHANIFA E., KANIYATTAZHIKAM, CF HSS GROUND,
KOTTIYAM, ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT -
691571.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..26..
9 PRIYA P. R., VARUPLANKALA OLATHANNI,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ANUSREE S. S., W/O PRAKASAN N. S., ANUSREE
BHAVAN, UDIYANKULANGARA, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 132.
2 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004, REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY.
3 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
SUPPLY CO., P. B. NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI - 682020, REP. BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695001.
5 PRINCIPAL, AMRUTHA SCHOOL OF PHARMACY, AMRITHA
VISHWA VIDHYAPEETHAM UNIVERSITY, AIMS HEALTH
SCIENCES CAMPUS, AIMS PONEKKARA P. O.,
ERNAKULAM - 682 041.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..27..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.6476 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 ASWATHY S., AGED 28 YEARS
W/O. MANEESH VIJAYAN, ELAVANAKANDATHIL HOUSE,
PULLICKAMALLY P.O,MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 682 314.
2 PADMAKUMARI S.S., W/O. SUBEESH K.P
SREENILAYAM, MEMALA P.O, VITHURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 551.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHARAM.P
SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS
SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
LTDSUPPLYCO, P.B NO. 2030, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI - 682 020REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT IN KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..28..
4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOBSCSUPPLYCO
R2 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
R4 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14-02-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1973/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 14-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases
..29..
-----------------------------------------
WA Nos. 1973/2019, 1393/2019, 1449/2019,
1491/2019, 1492/2019, 1506/2019, 1519/2019,
1934/2019, 2228/2019, 2281/2019, 2286/2019,
2310/2019, 2322/2019, 2378/2019 & 164/2020 &
WP(C) No. 6476/2018
------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2020 K.Vinod Chandran, J.
Appellants in all these appeals except WA No.164 of 2020 is the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, "PSC"). WA No.164 of 2020 is filed by the persons in the rank list; which appeals are filed with leave of this Court, since the appellants were not parties to the O.A. Respondents are persons, who were declined consideration in the selection to the post of Assistant Pharmacist. The appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which it is found that the respondents/writ petitioners having studied a paper in Basic Electronics and Computer Applications, as part of the B.Pharm course, were entitled to be considered for WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..30..
selection to the post of Assistant Pharmacist.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for all parties. It is submitted on behalf of the PSC that the notification specifically prescribed a pass in any computer course of not less than three months duration, recognized by the State or Central Government. There can be no equivalence granted by the Court as has been held in Bank of India v. Aarya K. Babu [(2019) 8 SCC 587] and Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others v. Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404]. The candidates without such a qualification were rightly denied consideration.
3. Learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners seek to sustain the impugned judgment. It is also alternatively contended that many of the respondents have certificates in computer courses from institutions recognized by the Government and the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT). It is argued that even otherwise what is intended is only a working knowledge of computer applications, which the respondents had acquired by reason of the paper they qualified as part of WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..31..
the B.Pharm course. The paper also was in Basic Electronics and Computer Applications. In fact, the learned Single Judge has found that in a period of six months, they had undertaken the subject, which had two hours in theory and three hours in practical every week. In such circumstances, the respondents/writ petitioners are proficient in computers, even more than that of a candidate, who has passed a course of three months. It is argued that there are certificates from recognized institutions produced in the writ petition. It is also argued that there is nothing stated in the notification as to the exact course or the institution, from which the certificate should be produced. A different notification is pointed out to contend that it is specified therein that the certificate should be issued by the NCVT, which is absent here. No such specification having been made in the notification, there cannot be rejection of candidates only for reason of the rather vague qualification in computer course not being WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..32..
possessed by the respondents. The job of a Pharmacist also does not involve any application in computers and the prescription itself is arbitrary.
4. The qualification prescribed, as we see from Ext.P1 notification produced in WA No. 1449 of 2019, is as below:
"1. Degree in Pharmacy from a recognized University OR
a) Diploma in Pharmacy
b) 2 years experience as pharmacist in a reputed Medical store
2. Pass in any basic computer course of not less than 3 months duration recognised by State or Central Government.
3. Registration with Kerala State Pharmacy Council.
Note: Rule 10(a)ii of part II of KS&SSR is applicable."
5. It is also an admitted fact, that there are persons, who have obtained such qualifications and whose candidature having been accepted by the PSC. The pass in computer course, having not less than three months duration, as we see from the notification, is an additional qualification apart from Degree in Pharmacy from a recognized WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..33..
University or a Diploma with experience.
6. It is also admitted that the subject, Basic Electronics and Computer Applications, was introduced as part of B.Pharm course in the year 2003. The Special Rules for the advertised post was framed in the year 2010 by GO(MS) 30/2010 dated 04.06.2010. In such circumstances, it cannot be assumed that the expert body, which framed the Special Rules, did not take into consideration the fact that the B.Pharm course has a paper in Computer Applications. Despite that, it was thought that every candidate should have a pass in a basic computer course of not less than three months duration, recognized by the State or Central Government.
7. We garner support from the decisions cited by the learned Standing Counsel in Aarya Babu and Zahoor Ahmad Rather's cases (supra). Zahoor Ahmad Rather was a case in which the qualification prescribed was 'Matric with ITI in the relevant Trade viz Electrician' for the post of Technician. In the course of the selection process in certain WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..34..
Districts, Diploma holders were also considered, which was later interfered with by the Selection Board. The Diploma holders challenged the decision on grounds of the rules of the game having been changed mid-way and Diploma being a higher qualification to ITI. The Court found that there was no change in the Rule and the notification only spoke of ITI. As to the Diploma being a higher qualification it was found that there was no rule, prescribing the acquisition of a higher qualification, presupposing the lower qualification as found in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596]. It was also held that though the ITI holders could get lateral entry to a Diploma Course; ITI was not an essential qualification for acquiring Diploma. It was held so in paragraph 27:
"27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..35..
administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held;
"The stipulation that the qualification prescribed is the bare minimum requirement of the job emphasises that it is an essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with" (sic).
In the present case Rule 10(a)ii of Part II KS&SSR is applicable, but the claim of the respondents is not acquisition of a higher qualification. What is required is a pass in a computer course of three months duration, which also has to be recognised by the Central or State Government. The respondents claim that the pass in one paper in Computer Application as part of the B.Pharm course can be treated as equivalent.
8. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the presumption that the one paper in Basic Electronics and Computer Application, which every graduate WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..36..
student in Pharmacy would have to pass, would suffice and it would be equivalent to a pass in any basic computer course of not less than three months duration. We are unable to agree with the same, especially, going by the declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not the court's task to equalize qualifications, especially, when the authority brings out the Special Rules. The appointing authority, which also brought out the rules with the specific requirements of essential qualifications for the post, is presumed to be aware of the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies, which lead up to the acquisition of a qualification, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather's case (supra). We do not think that there can be any equivalence made by the Courts insofar as the one paper in Basic Electronics and Computer Applications, which all the respondents had undertaken in their B.Pharm course, to find WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..37..
it as sufficient in lieu of what is prescribed in the notification.
9. Aarya Babu is a case, in which the High Court found that a candidate having B.Sc Degree in Forestry is entitled to be appointed as an Agricultural Field Officer, when the notification did not prescribe that as an eligible qualification. The High Court found that B.Sc Forestry was equivalent to B.Sc Agriculture since
(i) one of the prescribed qualifications, B.Sc Agro-Forestry was not available anywhere in the country, (ii) the ICAR had certified that a graduate degree in Forestry is equivalent to that in Agriculture and (iii) the Recruitment Board in the very next year had prescribed B.Sc Forestry as an eligible qualification for the identical post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court however reversed the said decision and we quote hereunder a few extracts:
12. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-
established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..38..
included in the notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned to challenge the notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified.
xxx xxx xxx
14. If the above decision in Mohd. Sohrab Khan case(2009) 4 SCC 555 is kept in perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness of the action of the employer what would be sacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the notification, since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the notification though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification/criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The same principle will WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..39..
hold good when a consideration is made by the Court.
xxx xxx xxx
16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India(1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government."
(Underlining by us for emphasis) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that it is not the Court's duty to equalize qualifications.
10. We now come to the contention that many of the respondents have produced certificates evidencing completion of a course in Computer Applications. In this context, we have to emphasise that none of the candidates has a contention that they have produced the certificates from private institutions along with their applications. WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..40..
Despite this, we have looked at all of them and are not convinced that any of these can be accepted as a pass in a computer course of not less than three months duration recognized by the State or Central Government. Here, we have to pertinently observe that it is not, any computer course that is required by the notification. The Computer Course should be (i) having atleast three months duration and (ii) recognised by the State or Central Government.
11. We look at Ext.P4 in the W.P. from which WA No. 2286 of 2019 arise, issued by one Royal Educational Institute and Computer Training Centre. We also notice that the institute is affiliated under NCVT, Government of India and recognized by the Government of Kerala. However, the certificate is issued by the institute and not by the Government or by an examining body recognised by the Government. The certificate also does not speak of the duration of the course or its recognition by WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..41..
the Government.
12. The prescription is pass in a course, which is recognized by the State or Central Government, and not a pass in a course conducted by an institution recognized by the State or Central Government. In this context, we have to notice that there are a number of institutions recognized by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). They also conduct courses by themselves and issue certificates, which do not have the sanctity of a course recognised by the NCVT. The institutions recognized by NCVT are permitted to prepare students to sit for the examination conducted by the NCVT itself. The certificate also is issued by the NCVT and we find the prescription in the notification to be one mandating a qualification in a course recognized by the State or Central Government.
13. The other certificates pointed out to us are WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..42..
found from the W.P.s, from which the W.A.s arise. Those produced in W.A. No.2228/19 (Ext.P4), W.A. No.1506/19 (Ext.P4), W.A. No.1492/19 (Ext.P4), W.A. No.2310/19 (Ext.P4), W.A. No.2322/19 (Ext.P4), W.A. No.2378/19 (Ext.P4), W.A. No.1973/2019 (Ext.P5) and W.A. No.1491/19 (Ext.P4) are certificates from private institutions. Ext.P4(a) in W.A 1449/19 is a certificate issued by a Government of India Enterprise, but in a course having less than 3 months duration. Ext.P4(a) in W.P.(C) No.6476/18 is a certificate issued by a Government of Kerala Organisation in the co-operative sector, without specification as to the duration of the course. There are no such certificates produced in the W.P.s, from which the other W.A.s arise.
14. The applicants cannot challenge the prescription as unreasonable on their notion of what duties a Pharmacist is required to WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..43..
discharge. The nature of work and the requirements therein, are within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority and there cannot be any dilution thereof, especially when prescriptions are made in the notification. Having applied under the notification, they cannot also challenge the prescription as to essential requirements, after having participated in the selection. The notification clearly provided that there should be a pass in a computer course of not less than three months duration, recognised by the Central or State Government. The impugned judgment proceeded on the premise that the one paper in Computer Applications, the respondents qualified in, as a part of the B.Pharm curriculum, is more than sufficient; which the Court is not competent to find as has been clearly held in the cited decisions. The learned Single Judge also did not consider WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..44..
the certificates produced by the individual respondents, as one within the requirement prescribed.
15. The conclusion is hence that the learned Single Judge erred insofar as equalizing qualification, which is prescribed as one additional to that of Degree in Pharmacy or Diploma with experience. We, hence, allow the writ appeals and reject the writ petitions. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Bka/15.02.2020 WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..45..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6476/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION (PUBLISHED) IN GAZETTE DATED 13.06.2014) TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.PHARM CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M.G UNIVERSITY DATED 4.06.2013 TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE B.PHARM CERTIFICATE DATED 01.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE M.G UNIVERSITY TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AND EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPIES EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN COMPUTER COURSE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST YEAR B. PHARM MARK SHEETS ISSUED BY THE M.G UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PHARMACY COUNCIL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PHARMACY COUNCIL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
WA No.1973/2019 & con. cases ..46..
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE WRITTEN TEST.
EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF KPSC SHOWING DETAILS OF THE WRITTEN TEST CONDUCTED ON 19.06.2015 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE PRINTOUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF KPSC SHOWING DETAILS OF INTIMATION FOR CERTIFICATE UPLOADING ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUTS TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE KPSC SHOWING DETAILS OF DISPOSAL OF 2ND PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR ASST. PHARMACIST IN SUPPLYCO.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUTS OF THE SHORT LIST TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF KPSC.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 5.02.2018 (RECEIVED ON 14.2.2018)ISSUED BY THE KPSC TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.