Kumari Vinodhini M.N. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Kerala State Pharmacy Council

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 3663 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **KUMARI VINODHINI M.N., D/O. MUTHU PILLAI P., T.C 39/1516, JYOTHI BHAVAN, KALYAN NAGAR 56, TRIVANDRUM-695009.** **BY ADV.SRI.V.R.REKESH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 004.** **2. THE KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, MNVG ADIYODI MEMORIAL PHARMACY BHAVAN, P.H. LAB COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM-695035.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SC, KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **AS** ## **WP(C).No. 3663 of 2018 (G)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION INVITED TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PHARMACIST IN THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AS CATEGORY NO. 280/2014 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED ONLINE EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2017 EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/12/2017 EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN COMPUTER APPLICATIONS ISSUED IN THE YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **AS** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 19[th] day of July, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner, who is a candidate who submitted application for appointment to the post of Assistant Pharmacist in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short), is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the short list. 2. The qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1 notification for appointment of Assistant Pharmacist are the following: - “1. Degree in Pharmacy from a recognised University **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** - (a) Diploma in Pharmacy W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018 2 - (b) 2 years experience as pharmacist in a reputed Medical store. 2. Pass in any basic computer course of not less than 3 months duration recognised by State or Central Government. 3. Registration with Kerala State Pharmacy Council.” 3. The issue arising in this case is relating to pass in basic computer course of not less than 3 months duration recognised by State or Central Government. In this case petitioner acquired the qualification in basic computer course from Kerala State Pharmacy Council; but the certificate awarded to him was after undergoing the 2 months' course. Ext.P6 is the certificate of advanced level course in computer applications issued by Kerala State Pharmacy Council. Ext.P6 would show that petitioner has undergone the course from 05.02.2001 to 04.04.2001. Producing Ext.P5 certificate issued by the Pharmacy Council on 21.12.2017, in which it is W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018 3 certified that the 2 months' course conducted by them and attended by petitioner is equivalent to 3 months course, petitioner claims that he is duly qualified and is liable to be included in the short list. 4. The Pharmacy Council has filed a counter affidavit stating the syllabus and duration of each subject is as follows: |Sl.No.|Title of the Subject|Duration/hours| |---|---|---| |1|Introduction to MS Windows|20| |2|MS WORD and MS EXCELL|25| |3|MS POWER POINT|15| |4|INTERNET APPLICATIONS|10| |5|PHARMACY SOFTWARE SUGGESSTED BY<br>KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION|30| 5. It is stated that the duration of the course was one month for 6 hours per day for four to five days in a week totalling to 100 hours and when the course was stretched to two months, the same total working of 100 hours is maintained. Classes of 4 hours is taken on three to four days in a week for W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018 4 completion of 50 hours per week. According to them, 2 months' course is with the same syllabus as that of 3 months' course and accordingly they had issued Exts.P5 certificate to the effect that 2 months' course undergone by the petitioner is equal to the 3 months' course. 6. The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Computer course completed by the petitioner is after undergoing a 2 months' course and a competent authority after conducting a course with duration of 2 months in 2001 cannot certify in 2017 that such course is equivalent to 3 months course. Moreover, it is stated that the qualification notified as well as prescribed for the post is pass in Computer course with 3 months' duration. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018 5 as well as the learned Standing Counsel. 8. Though, it may be true that petitioner has undergone a 2 months' course having the syllabus and hours of study as equivalent to that of 3 months' course, the qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 notification and that prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Pharmacist is “a pass in basic computer course of not less than 3 months' duration”, it does not provide even for an equivalent qualification. There is no order or rule, which provides for those who have undergone the computer course for particular number of hours are treated as having the qualification for appointment to the post. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Suma A. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others** [2011 (1) KLT 1], PSC W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018 6 is incompetent to consider any qualification as equivalent unless the Special Rules provides for recognition of qualifications other than the prescribed qualifications. In this case the rules prescribing the qualification for the post in Civil Supplies Corporation does not provide for recognition of equivalent qualification. More over in the recent decision of the Apex Court in **Nagaland PSC v. State of Nagaland** [2017 (13) SCC 498] it is held that PSC cannot fix or alter the qualifications and to say, one qualification is equivalent when the rules do not provide for the same and it is for the appointing authority to decide. Though, it would be harsh to deprive a candidate his opportunity to be considered for appointment, even after undergoing a course with equal number of hours as required in the case of the course prescribed, as W.P.(C).No.3663 of 2018 7 long as the appointing authority has not incorporated such a course or an equivalent course as a qualification, the action of PSC in not including the petitioner in the short list cannot be said to be illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS