1

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 produce  separate  certificate  in 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)