High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petition dismissed.

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shyla K.R.

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No. 409 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Vinod Chandran
  • V. G. Arun
Judgment Date
2020-01-24
Court Decision / Holding
Original petition dismissed; no order as to costs. The Tribunal’s direction to treat the applicant as fully qualified and to include her in the rank list is not interfered with, and the PSC is required to consider the candidature in light of the equivalence certificates.
Final Disposition
Original petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Kerala Public Service Commission

Respondents

  • Shyla K.R.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. C. Sasidharan (Senior Counsel) for KPSC

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Rekha Vasudevan, Advocate for Shyla K.R.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition challenges a Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to consider the candidature of Shyla K.R. for a Lecturer in Information Technology (Polytechnics) post under the Kerala Technical Education Department, by treating her BE in Information Science and Engineering as equivalent to the notified B.Tech qualification. The applicant had an engineering degree from Visvesvaraya Technological University and subsequently produced equivalency letters from Mahatma Gandhi University and the University of Kerala, along with a government letter recognizing equivalence. Annexure A2 notified four vacancies with a prescribed qualification of a first-class BE/B.Tech in Information Technology/Engineering. PSC initially rejected the candidature claiming lack of proper qualification, despite the candidate’s shortlisting and subsequent equivalency certificates. The Tribunal had interim directions permitting provisional participation in interviews (19.07.2017) and later held that the applicant’s degree was a sufficient qualification for the post. PSC argued that Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II KS&SSR provides for equivalence only when recognized by government orders or as per rules, citing Suma v. Kerala PSC to justify its stance. The High Court held that the certificates and government letter demonstrate equivalence, distinguished the Suma precedent, and held that the PSC cannot rely on it to defeat the applicant. The petition was dismissed with no costs, upholding the Tribunal’s direction to treat the applicant as qualified.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 10(a)(ii) Part II KS&SSRRule 13(b)(i) KS&SSRSpecial Rules applicable to Kerala Technical Education Service

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules
  • Equivalency of qualifications as recognized by executive orders or government standing orders under KS&SSR Rule 10(a)(ii)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the equivalence certificates from Mahatma Gandhi University and the University of Kerala, along with the government letter recognizing such equivalence, establish that the BE in Information Science and Engineering is equivalent to the notified B.Tech in Information Technology. Since the applicant was shortlisted and permitted to participate in the process, and the equivalence is supported by official certificates, it is unreasonable to exclude her candidature on the basis of lack of a government order. The PSC’s reliance on Rule 10(a)(ii) and the decision in Suma v. Kerala PSC is misapplied, as the rules permit recognition of equivalent qualifications when provided and supported by government instruments.

Contentions of Respondents

The PSC submits that the notification and Special Rules do not provide for recognizing any equivalent qualification; therefore, the applicant cannot be treated as qualified. It relies on KS&SSR Rule 10(a)(ii) and the Suma decision to argue that equivalence cannot be assumed without explicit provision. The PSC maintains that the final decision on equivalency rests with the statutory rules and that the Tribunal’s reliance on certificates cannot override the absence of a specific provision in the rules.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission2011 (1) KLT 1 (FB)DistinguishedThe Full Bench held PSC incompetent to decide equivalency of qualifications unless the Special Rules provide for recognition of equivalent qualifications. The present court distinguishes this ruling, noting that equivalence supported by government certificates can be considered, and PSC cannot rely on Suma to defeat the applicant.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shyla K.R. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **OP(KAT).No.409 OF 2018** **OA (EKM) 1214/2017 DATED 03-08-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **RESPONDENT/S:** **SHYLA.K.R AGED 29 YEARS W/O DEYANAND R., RESIDING AT MANEZHATH NIRMALYAM, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 010** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN** **FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** The Kerala Public Service Commission ( for short “the PSC”) is aggrieved by the order in O.A. (EKM) No.1214 of 2017, directing the Commission to consider the candidature of the applicant by treating her as fully qualified as per the notification and to include her at the appropriate place in the rank list published pursuant to Annexure A2 notification. The PSC had published Annexure A2, notifying four vacancies in the post of Lecturer in Information Technology (Polytechnics) under the Kerala Technical Education Department. The qualification prescribed for the notified post was first class Bachelors Degree in Information Technology/Engineering from a recognised University after undergoing regular course of study. The applicant had the qualification of Bachelor of O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 3 Engineering in Information Science and Engineering acquired from the Visveswaraiah Technological University, Belgaum, Karnataka after undergoing a regular course of study. 2. Pursuant to Annexure A2 notification, the applicant submitted her candidature along with equivalency certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University and participated in the written examination and was included in Annexure A4 short list. Being a person belonging to Dheevara Community, the applicant's name was included in the supplementary list for the Dheevara Community. As directed by the PSC, the applicant submitted her certificate for verification. The applicant was later issued with Annexure A6 letter dated 20.02.2017 granting her ten days time to produce the Government order to prove that her qualification of BE in Information Science and Engineering to be equivalent to the O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 4 notified qualification of B.Tech in Information Technology. Annexure A6 letter was received by the applicant on 4.3.2017, by which time, the ten days granted under Annexure A6 was already over and therefore, the applicant requested for enlargement of time as per Annexure A8 letter. Thereafter, the applicant obtained Annexure A9 eligibility certificate from the University of Kerala and Annexure A11 letter from the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, certifying that her BE Degree in Information Science and Engineering can be considered as equivalent to the B.Tech Degree of the University of Kerala. Despite submission of the certificates of equivalency, the applicant's candidature was rejected, which she could deduce from her profile on the PSC's website, where the applicant's candidature was shown as rejected for reason of 'no proper O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 5 qualification'. Aggrieved, the original application was filed. 2. The PSC opposed the original application, contending that in spite of being granted an opportunity, the applicant failed to produce Government order regarding the equivalency of qualification. It was further contended that equivalency of qualification would be decided strictly in accordance with Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II of KS&SSR. 3. The Tribunal, by an interim order, directed the PSC to permit the applicant to provisionally participate in the interview to be held from 19.07.2017 for the post, subject to further orders. By the impugned order, the Tribunal found the reason for rejection of the applicant's candidature to be unsustainable. It was held that in view of the certificates issued by the University of Kerala and the Mahatma Gandhi University, it could be safely concluded that the Degree O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 6 awarded to the applicant is sufficient qualification for the post of Lecturer in Information Technology. 4. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. The PSC challenges the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Commission had issued the notification strictly in accordance with the qualification prescribed in the Special Rules, which do not provide for recognising any equivalent qualification or other qualification. It is the contention of the Commission that in the absence of any provision enabling acceptance of equivalent qualification, the Commission cannot treat the applicant as qualified. Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II KS& SSR is referred to and the decision in O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 7 ## _**Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2011 (1) KLT 1**_ _**(F.B.)]**_ is relied on in support of the contention. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the certificates of equivalency issued by the M.G. and Kerala Universities and Annexure A11 letter issued by the Government is sufficient proof of the applicant having acquired the notified qualification. It is submitted that except the nomenclature, the course undergone and qualification acquired by the applicant is identical to the notified qualification. 7. It is not in dispute that the applicant has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering in Information Science and Engineering with distinction. The requisite qualification is first class Bachelor's Degree in Information Technology/Engineering from recognised University after O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 8 undergoing regular course of study. The applicant was included in the short list and by Annexure A6, was required to produce Government order to the effect that her qualification is equivalent to the notified qualification. The applicant has produced Annexures A5 and A9 eligibility certificates issued by the Mahatma Gandhi and Kerala Universities respectively. The applicant also produced Annexure A11 letter issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, stating that the BE Degree in Information Science and Engineering acquired by the applicant can be considered as the equivalent to the B.Tech Degree of the University of Kerala. The above certificates conclusively prove that the applicant's qualification is equivalent to the notified qualification. 8 Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II KS&SSR, which is referred 9 O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 ## to by the learned Standing Counsel reads as follows:- _“10. Qualifications.[(a) (i) …..._ _(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per rule 13 (b) (i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and such of those qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post.”_ Reading of the Rule shows that the PSC is empowered to accept the qualifications recognised by the executive orders or standing orders of the Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for the post in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per Rule 13 (b) (i) of the said Rules in cases where equivalent qualification is provided for in the Rules. Interpreting Rule 13(b) (i), the Full Bench in _**Suma'**_ s case held the PSC to be incompetent to deal with the question of equivalency of educational or other O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 10 qualification prescribed by Special Rules, unless Special Rules provide for recognition of equivalent qualifications. 9. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is not open for the PSC to now contend that there is no provision in the Technical Education Service Rules providing for consideration of equivalent qualification in appointments to the post of Lecturer in Information Technology (Polytechnics). This is for the reason that the PSC had issued Annexure A6 requiring the applicant to produce the requisite Government order recognising the applicant's qualification as equivalent to the notified qualification. The applicant having produced the equivalency certificates from the M.G. and Kerala Universities, as also the letter issued on behalf of the Government recognising such equivalency, the PSC cannot turn around and contend that equivalency cannot be considered. For the same O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 11 reason, the PSC cannot rely on the decision in _**Suma**_ 's case, to non-suit the applicant. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the power of judicial review vested with this Court. Consequently, the original petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ 24.01xxx O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO 1214 OF 2017 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE AWARDED TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE VISVESWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION FOR CATEGORY NO.388/2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 06/08/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF TH ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 26/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.** **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GRIIIB(3)7810/13/GW DATED 20/02/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/03/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.** **ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/03/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT** O.P.(KAT) No. 409 of 2018 13 ## **TO THE RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 08/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACB2/10308/17/DTE DATED 17/03/2017 ADDRESSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. L274/2017/H.EDN DATED 21/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/03/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE GATE PASS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE RESPONDENT ON 21/03/2017.** - **ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE WEBPAGE OF THE PROFILE OF THE APPLICANT ON THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO 1214/2017 DATED 3.8.2018**