Beena R. vs The Kerala Public Service Commission .

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9843-9844 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 19949-19950 OF 2015]

BEENA R. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The qualification for appointment of Lower

Division Typist is prescribed in the Notification,

which reads as follows :-

“7. Qualifications :

1. S.S.L.C. or its equivalent qualification.

2. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting.

3. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent (G.O.(P) No.17/2005/P&ARD dated 09.05.2005.

Note 1 : Those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002 should Signature Not Verified produce separate certificate in Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.03 12:03:31 IST Reason: Computer Word Processing or its equivalent.

2

Certificates in Computer Word Processing issued by Central, State Government Departments/ Agencies/ Societies, Universities after successfully completing course of study not less than three months duration are considered as equivalent.”

3. Since the appellant herein possessed only a

National Trade Certificate, the initial objection was

that the same was not the equivalent to the

prescribed qualification. That objection was

recalled by the Public Service Commission and the

appellant was included in the Rank List at Rank No.7.

However, an objection was later taken that the

Computer Word Processing possessed by the appellant

is acquired only after the last date of Notification

in 2009.

4. In the case of the appellant, what she possessed

is not KGTE Typewriting, but the equivalent

qualification which has been approved by the Public

Service Commission, in which case, what she is

required is only to produce a separate certificate in

Computer Word Processing. It may be seen that Note 1

says that those who have passed KGTE Typewriting

before January, 2002, should produce separate

certificate in Computer Word Processing. It is not 3

in dispute that the appellant possesses an equivalent

qualification of KGTE (English) Typewriting, but she

did not have a separate certificate as far as the

Computer Word Processing is concerned. No doubt, it

is also a prescribed qualification. However,

relaxation has been granted to those who acquired the

qualification of KGTE prior to 2002, for producing a

certificate regarding Computer Word Processing. Once

the word 'produce' is used, it can only be at the

time of either verification of the records or at the

time of written examination or at the time of

appointment. In the case of the appellant, she had

produced the certificate prior to the written

examination and on the basis of her marks obtained,

she has been assigned Rank No. 7 in the Rank List.

Unfortunately, this crucial distinction has not been

noted in the correct perspective by the High Court.

There is also a background for this Note. Prior to

2002, Computer Word Processing was not otherwise part

of the curriculum of KGTE, it was introduced

subsequently. That was the reason, the Note was

introduced. Those who possessed the qualification

prior to 2002 should additionally have the Computer

Word Processing and they should also produce a

separate certificate in that regard. 4

5. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts

of this case, we find it difficult to appreciate the

contention, though vehemently advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission

that the Notification required the applicant to

possess the Computer Word Processing as well. That

possessing read with the expression 'produce' in the

background of those candidates who qualified prior to

2002, makes the whole difference. In that view of

the matter, the appeals are allowed. The Judgment of

the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be

appointed in accordance with her position in the Rank

List. This should be done within three months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In

the event of any unlikely delay, the appellant shall

be deemed to be in actual service from 01.11.2017.

There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

July 28, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI -A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19949-19950/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-12-2014 in OP (KAT) No. 117/2014 and order dated 09-02-2015 in RP No. 10/2015 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)

BEENA R. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 28-07-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv.

Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. P. B. Suresh, Adv.

Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable

Judgment.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)