Kerala Public Service Commission vs Shebin

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.

The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) is the appellant challenging the judgment dated 1.8.2014 in WP(C)No.24279 of 2012 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

The appellant invited applications for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerks in the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) as per gazette notification dated 16.7.2012, which prescribed the following qualification:-

i. Degree in any discipline and

ii. Certificate in Data Entry and office Automation of minimum 3 months (120 hrs) duration awarded by Lal Bahadur Shasthri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) or from similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government.

The writ petitioner contended that he has a Degree in Computer Application (DCA), a higher qualification, and was thus entitled to apply for the post in question. It was his case that several persons who had DCA qualification were allowed to apply, but he did not apply as the notification did not disclose the fact that candidates with higher qualification could also apply. On this allegation, prayers were sought to set aside the selection process and to invite fresh applications accepting DCA qualification and allied qualifications or in the alternative to command the appellant to re-open and extend the date for applying and permit the petitioner also to apply for the post. Declaration was also sought for that the act of the appellant in changing qualification without due publicity is illegal.

The appellant filed a counter affidavit specifically pointing out that the allegation of the petitioner that the PSC had decided to accept the applications of candidates of DCA qualifications is absolutely incorrect and denied the same and also submitted that candidates possessing equivalent/higher qualification could apply for the post by adding such equivalent/higher qualification in their profile as qualification possessed by entering the details of the same in the remarks column of the notification. That the above procedure was made known to all the candidates and that there is no bar for anybody with higher qualification to apply as the scrutiny of the applications comes only at a later stage. It is further stated that as far as the instant case is concerned, a candidate with DCA qualification is not entitled to be considered for the post and the words similar/equivalent bearing in Ext.P1 notification is only with reference to the institute from which the certificate in  Data Entry and Office Automation should have been obtained. It is reiterated that equivalency of an institution is entirely different from equivalency of qualification and that since DCA was not treated as an equivalent qualification, the applications with DCA qualification were rejected. In short, it was the contention of the PSC that there is no change in the qualification made since Ext.P1 and that if anybody with DCA had applied, they were doing so at their risk as it was not an equivalent qualification, but there was no bar for applying as such since the scrutiny happens only later.

The learned single Judge set aside the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 and directed the PSC to issue a revised notification incorporating the qualifications and also specifying whether equivalent or higher qualification should also be accepted and giving a chance to the eligible candidates to apply for the post. The PSC filed a review petition, RP No.884 of 2014, which was dismissed by order dated 24.2.2015.

Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the factual reasoning in the judgment is wrong as the PSC had never notified any change in the qualification after Ext.P1 notification and that candidates with DCA qualification had applied, but the Commission had already decided that DCA is not an equivalent qualification for the post in question and the equivalency mentioned in the notification was only with respect to the institution. It is also submitted that they had rejected about 590 applications received with DCA qualification. The direction of the learned single Judge was unwarranted in this situation as qualification as notified in Ext.P1 stands and no change was brought about by the Commission.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the factual aspects involved, we feel that since no change has been made by the PSC with respect to the qualifications after the issuance of Ext.P1, and as a matter of fact the Commission had decided that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question, which fact was put in the form of an affidavit before the learned single Judge itself, there was no warrant for allowing the writ petition and issuing the directions impugned in the judgment under appeal. Even if a person with higher qualification had applied, the same would have been rejected when the scrutiny takes place before shortlisting the candidates for the interview. We also note that in the instant case since the very foundation on which the writ petition is filed, namely, that candidates with DCA were permitted to apply and was being considered for selection is found to be wrong, the petitioner could not have been prejudiced in any manner from his inability to apply as he was not qualified for the post in question. Under these circumstances, the directions issued in the impugned judgment will turn out to be a futile exercise. In that view of the matter we hold that the directions were not warranted in the facts of case and accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge by allowing the writ appeal and dismissing the writ petition.

The writ appeal is allowed as above.