Kerala High Court
Prasad G.R vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 17 March, 2010
Author: Harun-Ul-Rashid
Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 127 of 2010(M)
1. PRASAD G.R., SIVAGANGA, MARKET ROAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No. 127 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was an applicant for the selection to the post of System Manager/EDP Manager in Kerala Public Service Commission. The qualification prescribed for the aforesaid post as per the notification in the Gazette dated 14.1.2008 are as hereunder:-
M.C.A. Or B.Tech., Electrical& Electronics/Electronics/Computer Science or B.Tech(any discipline) with Specialization in Computer(i.e.,PGDCA, OR Equivalent) with 8 years experience in Data Processing/Software Development.
OR B.Tech (any discipline) with 10 years experience in Data Processing/Software Development, OR M.Sc with Specialization in Electronics/Physics/Computer Science /Mathematics/Statistics with 10years experience in Data Processing/Software Development.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to attend the test and thereafter on verification of the documents, his application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
i. Call for records leading to issuance of Ext.P6 from the respondent and issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash Exhibit P6 orders.
WPC.No. 127 of 2010 : 2 : ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the Interview for the post of System Manager/EDP Manager as per Ext.P3 Notification.
3. The main challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. As per Ext.P6, the application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not possessing the prescribed qualification pertaining to the experience. Going by the notification to earn eligibility to compete for the selection, a candidate must have 8 years experience in Data Processing Software Development. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a holder of B.Tech Electronics Degree, he requires to satisfy only the second limb of the clause prescribing the qualifications. As per the same, to earn eligibility he should have 8 years experience in Data Processing and Software Development. But, the petitioner's grievance is that the experience certificate submitted by him on receipt of Ext.P5 was not properly appreciated by the respondents. According to him it would reveal that the petitioner is possessing the prescribed experience.
3. The main contention of the petitioner in this Writ petition is that in respect of persons possessing MCA/B.Tech no experience is required. This question was considered earlier, by this court in WP(C)25596/2009. It was considered at the instance of another applicant pursuant to the WPC.No. 127 of 2010 : 3 : notification dated 14.1.2008 whose application was rejected on the same ground. This court as per Judgment dated 20.10.2009 repelled the contention of the petitioner therein and dismissed the said writ petition. It was held that going by the very notification, the prescription of the 8 years is applicable both to MCA/B.Tech Degree holders as well. I have gone through the qualifications prescribed as per notification which is extracted in the affidavit filed by the respondent. I am in perfect agreement with the judgment in WP(C)25596/09 and therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner that no experience is prescribed and, as such, required in terms of the notification for MCA/B.Tech Degree holders.
4. The petitioner has yet another contention. Even if it is taken that the prescribed period of experience is required, the experience certificate produced by him on receipt of Ext.P5 would reveal that he possessed the prescribed qualification and also the experience. Ext.R1(a) and R1(b) are the experience certificates produced by the petitioner before the respondent on receipt of Ext.P5 notice. Ext.R1(a) is the experience certificate issued from the institution by name SBS Visual Communication, Attingal and Ext.R1(b) is the experience certificate issued by the AB Communication & WPC.No. 127 of 2010 : 4 : Color System Pvt.Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram. It is evident from Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) that those certificates were counter signed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Attingal.
However, the learned counsel for the Commission contended that even a perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that the inadmissibility of those certificates. He has brought to my attention the form of declaration which was given in Ext.P5. As per the same the person who counter signs the experience certificate should also certify that he is an authorized person to inspect the registers kept by the concerned employer as per the provisions of the relevant Act/Rules of the State/Central Government. It is contended that in respect of the institutions in whose names the said certificates were issued to the petitioner, the Assistant Public Prosecutor could not be considered as an authorized person. Those certificates should have been counter signed by an officer authorized for that purpose like notified labour officer for that concerned area. That apart, the learned counsel submitted that a scanning of Exts. R1(a) and R1(b) would cast suspicion regarding the genuineness of those certificates in as much as the period covered by those certificates overlap for some period. The period mentioned in Ext.R1(a) is 13.06.2005 to16.12.2006. In Ext.R1(b) the period mentioned is 7.5.1999 to 30.06.2005. WPC.No. 127 of 2010 : 5 : Going by the said documents during the period from 13.6.2005 to 30.6.2005 the petitioner had worked in both the said institutions. On account of the said irregularities that infected Ext.R1(a) and R1(b), cannot be said that the action on the part of the Commission in refusing to reckon Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) as illegal or irrational warranting interference by this Court.
In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner based on Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). In short, there is no merit in this Writ Petition, and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge