Manju B.L. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Limited

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MANJU B.L. AGED 37 YEARS, W/O G. SABU, KRISHNA LEELA, KUMMALLOOR PO, KOLLAM.691573.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695004. 2 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695033.** **R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who was an applicant for the post of Computer Programmer-cum- Operator in the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd has approached this Court challenging the rejection of her application by the Kerala Public Service Commission and seeking directions to the first respondent to accept the candidature of the petitioner and to permit her to participate in the selection process. 2. It is submitted that Ext.P1 notification provided that the qualifications for the post would be **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 3** B.A/BSc./B.Com or equivalent three years degree awarded by a recognised University and three years experience in Programming and Computer operations under a Public Sector Undertaking or an Industrial Undertaking recognised under the Companies Act. Petitioner claims that she had the required qualification and experience and had produced the certificate to prove the fact. Ext.P6 certificates that the petitioner had worked as computer Lab Instructor at the University Institute of Technology, Kollam for more than six years. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner's application was shown as rejected and nullified. The petitioner ## **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 4** relies on Ext.P8 experience certificate produced by a candidate in the previous selection to the very same post and contends that the petitioner, who had produced an experience certificate from the very same institute in the very same post is also entitled to selection, since the candidate whose favour Ext.P8 certificate had issued has been included in Ext.P9 ranked list published for the very same post in respect of the previous selection. 4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the first respondent stating that the petitioner had the educational qualification. She had produced four experience certificates. **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 5** Three of such certificates was from Government Industrial Training Institute, Kollam covering three years and another certificate was as Computer Lab Instructor on contract basis in the University Institute of Technology, Kollam. It is stated that the experience gained by the petitioner as Junior Instructor or as Computer Lab Instructor are not the prescribed qualifications as per the notification and hence the petitioner's application was rejected. It is stated that though representations had been received from the petitioner along with revised experience certificate, the same were also examined and found not to be in order. It is stated at paragraphs 10 and **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 6** 11 of the counter affidavit as follows :- _''10. The petitioner is in paragraph 5 of the WP(C) contents that another candidate possessing the Experience Certificate from the same Institution as that of the petitioner had been included in the ranked list for the previous selection to the post. It is submitted that ranked list for the previous selection to the post (Cat.No.353/2008) was published on 25.1.2013. The candidate,Sri.Biju.S.B (Reg.No.100192) was included as Rank No.2 in the supplementary list for ezhava community and was advised on 7.3.2013. The Experience Certificate possessed by him was of 'Computer Lab Instructor (Contract)' from University Institute of Technology, Kollam affiliated to the University of Kerala. For the previous selection to the post (Cat.No.353/2008) the Experience Certificate possessed by the candidate as above was admitted but acceptance of the qualification was not in order; but_ **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 7** _as of now the commission is legally incapacitated any action in terms of the Rules._ _11. The present selection to the post of Computer Programmer-cumOperator in Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (Cat.No.407/2013) was conducted strictly adhering to the Recruitment Rules. Since the petitioner did not possess sufficient experience qualification, her application was rejected. It is submitted that there is no illegality on the part of KPSC as averred by the petitioner, as the selection to the said post has been carried out in accordance with the concerned Recruitment Rules and the Gazette notification._ 5. Ext.P8 shows that the person included at Sl.No.2 in the supplementary list of ezhava in Ext.P9 ranked list had the identical qualification as possessed **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 8** by the petitioner, i.e, as Computer Lab Instructor on contract basis in the Institute of Technology, University of Kerala, Kollam. It is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the said personm had been selected and included in Ext.P9 ranked list on the basis of the said certificate produced by him. In the petitioner's case also, petitioner has an identical certificate and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission places reliance on a full bench decision **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 9** of this Court in **Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2011 (1) KLT 1 (F.B)]** to contend that the Public Service Commission cannot decide the question of equivalence of educational or experience qualifications and the Public Service Commission can only conduct selection on the basis of the qualifications as prescribed. The decision of this Court in WP(C)No.32031 of 2017 is also relied on to contend that where specific qualifications are prescribed and experience certificate in a prescribed form is called for, the Public Service Commission can look into such experience certificate as produced in the prescribed form only and is not required to consider the nature of the ## **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 10** duties which are performed by the petitioner or to go behind the certificate find out whether the petitioner had required qualification. 7. A consideration of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that it is not in dispute that a person having the identical qualification had been selected by the Public Service Commission and included in the ranked list on the basis of the identical qualification. The Public Service Commission has no answer to the specific contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, apart from what is stated in the counter affidavit, which is extracted above. Selections to the Public **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 11** Sector Undertakings and Government Companies are being entrusted with Kerala Public Service Commission under Additional Functions Acts on a specific understanding that such selection will be carried out by the Public Service Commission following the principles of equality and in a uniform manner, without there being any discrimination as against individual candidates who participate in such selection. The Commission, therefore, is duty bound to carry out the selections adopting uniform criteria in the matter of acceptance of qualifications including experience. 8. In view of the fact that Kerala Public Service Commission has virtually **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 12** admitted that a person possessing the very same qualifications as possessed by the petitioner had been selected and included in a rank list in a previous selection, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised that the petitioner did not have the qualifications as notified cannot be countenanced. The notification prescribed experience in Computer operation and Programming. The petitioner has produced an experience certificate stating that she had three years experience as Junior Instructor in Computer operations and programming and two years experience as Junior Instructor in Computer operation and programming and one year experience as Junior instructor in data entry operation. ## **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 13** Ext.P6 certificate shows that the petitioner had worked for five years and eight months as Computer Lab Instructor and that duties included data entry operations, helping students for Programming and to administrate and manage the systems in the Institution. Ext.P8 is an identical certificate issued to Biju S.B. who has been included in Ext.P9 ranked list. 9. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualifications is completely unjustified. The rejection is therefore set aside. It is submitted that the **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 14** petitioner had participated in the selection pursuant to an interim order of this Court dated 16.2.2018. It is stated that the petitioner had been included in the short list prepared pursuant to the selection and that the petitioner's certificates had also been verified. It is also submitted that the Public Service Commission had thereafter published a ranked list on 3.7.2019. 10. In view of the fact that the rejection of the petitioner's application has been set aside, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner and to include the petitioner in the ranked list, if she is found otherwise eligible on the **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 15** basis of the inclusion in the short list at the appropriate place in the ranked list. Appropriate action shall be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** ACM / 21.8.2019 **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 16** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE-CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN BACHELOR OF COMPUTER APPLICATION DATED 7.11.2002 BY M.G UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN MASTER OF SCIENCE IN COMPUTER SCIENCE DATED 14.7.2006 BY M .G UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.1.2016 ISSUED FROM GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN KOLLAM.** **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.1.2016 ISSUED FROM GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, KOLLAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.1.2016 FROM UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF SCREEN SHOT OF THE PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.5.2011 ISSUED TO SRI. BIJU S.B FROM UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST DATED 25.1.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.3.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2017(B) 17** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT DATED 28.3.2017.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 29.3.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF SHORT LIST DATED 29.11.2018 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION DATED 27.12.2018.**