Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Kerala Public Service Commission vs Thirtha Thankakuttan on 7 December, 2016

Author: K.Surendra Mohan

Bench: K.Surendra Mohan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
                                    &
                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

             TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

                              OP(KAT).No. 145 of 2017

O.A(EKM)NO. 1461/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                         (CAMP SITTING, ERNAKULAM)
                                 ----------

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 :


1    KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
     REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
     COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004.

2    THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
     KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE,
     ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 688 003.


        BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C


RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS :

1.   THIRTHA THANKAKUTTAN,
     AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. PRATHEESH.P PALUKUTTIYIL KAPPIL,
     EAST KRISHNAPURAM P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA- 690 533.

2.   NITHIN UTHAMAN,
     AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. UTHAMAN N.K, NEDUPADIYIL HOUSE,
     EDANAD P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA - 689 123, KERALA.

3.   PRIYA K.,
     AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. AMBISH C.R, CHANCHALA,
     VADACKAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688 003, KERALA.

       R1 & R 3 BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
                         KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
                         SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
                         KUM.A.ARUNA


     THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
     ON 12-06-2018, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).No. 152 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


Msd.
06.07.2018
OP(KAT).No. 145 of 2017 (Z)

                                      APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1      TRUE COPY OF THE O.A (EKM) NO. 1461 OF 2016 WITH
                ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2      TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A (EKM) 1461/2016
                DATED 07/12/2016.

EXHIBIT P3      TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/08/2016.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

                                NIL

                                                 //TRUE COPY//


                                                 P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.
06.07.2018

                                                      C.R.
            K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.
             ----------------------
             O.P.(KAT) Nos.145, 152, 155, 168, 180,
               181, 187, 189, 220, 224, 225, 226
                          & 227 of 2017
             ----------------------
              Dated this the 12th day of June, 2018

                          JUDGMENT

Surendra Mohan, J.

These Original Petitions are all filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) and its District Officer challenging a common order dated 7.12.2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short) allowing a number of Original Applications. The applicants before the KAT are the respondents in these writ petitions. They are all candidates who had applied for selection and appointment to the posts of Lower Division Typist and Clerk Typist/Typist Clerk responding to Annexures A1 and A2 Notifications issued by the PSC. As per the impugned order, the KAT has found that the respondents in these cases were all eligible and qualified to be considered for the selection. Therefore, the O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

PSC has been directed to reconsider the rejection of their applications. The PSC is before before us aggrieved by the said direction.

2. As already noticed above, the respondents are all persons who had responded to the Notifications Annexures A1 and A2. The qualifications prescribed as per Annexures A1 and A2 are identical. What is stipulated are a pass in plus two or its equivalent, Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting or its equivalent and Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. The respondents are persons who have completed Typewriting Malayalam (Lower). However, they have not been issued with a certificate for the reason that they have not passed Paper III Word Processing, which is part of the Course. In view of the above, the PSC rejected their applications stating that they do not possess the required qualification as on the date of their applications. The respondents had approached the KAT challenging the said action of the PSC.

O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

3. According to the applicants, going by the Notifications, the qualification stipulated only required a candidate to pass the KGTE Malayalam Typewriting (Lower). A pass in Computer Word Processing is not stipulated as a qualification. Therefore, it was contended that they have satisfied the eligibility criteria for being considered for selection and appointment to the notified posts. For the reason that they had not passed the Word Processing paper, they had not been issued with the formal certificates. According to them, therefore, their marklists produced in support of their claims ought to have been accepted as sufficient proof of their qualification and they ought to have been considered for appointment.

4. The PSC contested the claims of the respondents pointing out that they did not possess the essential qualification that was stipulated by the Notifications Annexures A1 and A2. It was for the said reason that their applications had been rejected. According to them, the course consisted of Malayalam Typewriting (Lower) as well as O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

Computer Word Processing. Only after completing successfully both the components of the Course, a Certificate would be issued to a candidate. Since no Certificate had been issued to the candidates as on the date of the Notifications, it was contended that they are ineligible to be considered.

5. The KAT considered the respective contentions, found that since the respondents had passed their Malayalam Typewriting Lower Examination, they satisfied the qualifications stipulated by the Notifications Annexures A1 and A2. Holding that it was not necessary for them to pass the Computer Word Processing part of their course for the purpose of being eligible to be considered under the Notifications Anenxures A1 and A2, a direction has been issued to treat the respondents as eligible, to verify their individual qualifications and to permit them to participate in the selection process.

6. According to Adv. P.C. Sasidharan who appears for the PSC, Annexures A1 and A2 stipulate the qualifications that are necessary to be satisfied for a candidate to apply to O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

the notified post. For being considered, a candidate should possess apart from a pass in Plus two or its equivalent, Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting or its equivalent. Admittedly, none of the respondents possess such a certificate. Their case is that, since what is stipulated is only a qualification with respect to Malayalam Typewriting, a qualification in Word Processing was not necessary. The said case, according to the learned counsel cannot be accepted as satisfying the requirement stipulated by the Notification. The KAT seriously erred in accepting the case of the respondents, it is contended. Therefore, the counsel seeks interference with the impugned order of the KAT.

7. Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj who appears for the respondents meets the above contentions by pointing out that in order to understand the true import of the qualification prescribed in paragraph 7 of the Notifications, a comparison would have to be made of the wordings by which the qualification is prescribed for Malayalam as well as English Typewriting. In so far as Malayalam Typewriting is concerned, O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

what is stipulated is a Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting or its equivalent. In sharp contrast, in the case of English, a Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing is stipulated. The fact that Computer Word Processing has been specifically included as part of the qualification to English Typewriting, and the absence of any such specification in the case of Malayalam Typewriting shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the authorities did not intend Computer Word Processing to be a part of the qualification stipulated for Malayalam Typewriting. In other words, there has been a conscious exclusion of the requirement of a pass in Computer Word Processing while stipulating the qualification for Malayalam Typewriting. Viewed in the above perspective, it is contended that the respondents were all possessed of the required qualification, a pass in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting. Their only shortcoming was that they have not been issued with a certificate for the reason that they had not passed the Computer Word Processing part of the Course. In such O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the marklist that proves the eligibility of the candidates should be accepted. Therefore, the KAT has rightly found that the respondents are eligible as per the stipulations in Annexures A1 and A2 notifications. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew ((1980) 2 SCC 752) as well as Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE ((2005) 9 SCC 779) to contend that in the absence of the certificate that is stipulated by the Notifications, other authentic documents in proof of acquisition of such qualification could be accepted. Even for the said purpose, only substantial compliance is necessary as held by the Apex Court in Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service Commission ((2017) 11 SCC 276), it is contended.

8. According to Adv. B. Premnath who appears for respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(CAT) No. 220 of 2017, in the case of one of his clients, the PSC has, while verifying her Certificate, described her as having passed Typewriting Malayalam (Lower) as evident from Annexure A14 in the said O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

Original Petition. Therefore, it is contended that the candidates are all eligible for being considered.

9. According to the learned Government Pleader, the KGTE Typewriting Course was revised and as per G.O.(MS) No. 96/2001/H.Edn. Dated 16.8.2001, a copy of which has been handed over to us across the bar, the name of the certificate issued under the revised scheme for English Typewriting has been altered as 'K.G.T.E. - Typewriting in English (Lower/Higher) and Computer Word Processing'. The KGTE Malayalam Typewriting Course has also been revised as per G.O. (MS) No. 369/10/H.Edn. Dated 9.11.2010 including Word Processing as a subject for the said course. However, the Certificate is still called 'KGTE Malayalam Typewriting'. According to the learned Government Pleader, it is the revised nomenclature that finds a place in Annexures A1 and A2.

10. The counsel for the PSC has drawn our attention to Ext.P3 communication received from the Office of the Commissioner of Government Examinations intimating them that as per Rules, only a candidate who has passed O.P.(KAT)145/2017 & con. Cases.

Computer Word Processing also, would be issued with a KGTE Certificate. Since the respondents are not possessed of the KGTE Certificate that is stipulated by the Notifications, it is contended that they are not eligible to be considered for selection.

11. Heard. Clause 7 of Annexure A1 Notification which is identical to the qualification prescribed by Annexure A2 also, is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference.

b