OP(KAT) Nos. 82/2022 and 148/2022 (Common Judgment), Kerala Administrative Tribunal matter arising from OA(Ekm) Nos. 8/2020 and 1311/2019, High Court of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`OP(KAT) NO. 148 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - `1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULSI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004` - `2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KPSC, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD- 678001, PIN - 678001` - `BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 K.K.BEEYUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS W/O. M.LINJITH, MOOCHIKKAD HOUSE, CHETTIPADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673505` - `2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678001, PIN - 678001` - `3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS.` ``` U.BALAGANGADHARAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL(B/O) SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL(B/O) ``` ``` THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945 OP(KAT) NO. 82 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ANUSHA .P.Y. AGED 37 YEARS W/O.MANOJ C.H., RESIDING AST THEJASWANI, PONNAMPARA, PERINGOME P.O., KANNUR - 670 307. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN C.P.SABARI AMRUTHA SURESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.` - `2 DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM - 676 605.` - `3 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.` - `4 BINDUMOL M.M., ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) W/O. BIJUMON P. VISWAMBHARAN, PARACHALIL (H), ELANJI P.O., ERNAKULAM-. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )` - `5 RAJEESH E.V., ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) , S/O. E. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, EDAMANA ILLAM, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., ERNAKULAM- ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )` - `6 VINEETHA V.M., ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) W/O. RUPAK DIVAKARAN, VARAM,VNRA 9K, VINAYAKA NAGAR, MUKKOLAKKAL, KALLAYAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM- ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )` - `7 SAJINA K.T., ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) W/O. ABDUL MAJEED, KIZHAKKEKARA (H), P.O. THAZHEKODE,` ``` PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA KALEESWARAM RAJ THULASI K. RAJ SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL() ``` ``` SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC, SRI. ANTONY MUKATH-SR. GP ``` ``` THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. ================== ## OP(KAT) No.82/2022 (Arising out of the order of the KAT, TVM in OA(Ekm) No.8/2020 dated 22/02/2022) OP(KAT) No.148/2022 (Arising out of the order of the KAT , Ekm in OA(Ekm) No.1311/2019 dated 22/02/2022) ================== Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2023 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J Since these cases are arising out of a common verdict of the Tribunal and as the issues are almost identical or similar, these Original Petitions are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. 2. These OPs arise out of the impugned common final order dated 22.02.2022, rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA(Ekm) No.8/2020 and OA(Ekm) No.1311/2019 respectively. The issues raised in these cases are almost identical. The only difference is that the selection district in OP(KAT) No.82/2022 (arising out of OA(Ekm) No.8/2020) is in relation to Malappuram District, whereas, in the latter case, the selection district is Palakkad District. The Tribunal, as per the abovesaid common verdict, has given relief in the 2[nd] case, as he had OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 2 :- also attended the interview process, consequent to the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Whereas, in the first case, relief was granted on the ground that he was not interviewed by the PSC. The legal issues are answered in favour of the Original Applicants, but relief has been denied in the first case for the abovesaid reason. Hence, the Original Applicant in the first case [OA (Ekm) No.8/2020] has filed OP(KAT) No.82/2022, whereas the Public Service Commission has filed OP(KAT) No.148/2022 in respect of the common verdict, to the extent that it is in relation to the 2[nd] case, namely OA(Ekm) No.1311/2019, which has been allowed by the Tribunal. OP(KAT) No.82/2022 is taken as the lead case. OP(KAT) No.82/2022 [Arising out of the order of the KAT, Thiruvananthapuram in OA(Ekm) No.8/2020 dated 22/02/2022] 3. The Original Applicant herein has responded to Annexure A1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017, issued by the PSC for selection and appointment to the post of Full-time Junior Language Teacher (Hindi) in Malappuram District. According to the applicant, he possesses BA (Hindi) and C-TET, (Central Teachers Eligibility Test), I & II, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 3 :- Education, which, according to the applicant, would satisfy the minimum qualifications stipulated in Annexure-A1 selection notification issued by the PSC. That, on the basis of the said notification, she had applied and was found successful in the written examination and she was invited to attend the interview on 20.12.2019, as per Annexure A6. When the applicant had appeared for the interview, the respondent PSC authorities has taken the stand that she cannot be interviewed and her candidature stands rejected, since her C-TET qualification is not equivalent to K-TET qualification (Kerala Teachers Eligibility Test), which aspect is discernible from Annexure A7 rejection memo. The petitioner would contend that, as per Annexure A8 GO(P) No.145/2016/G.Edn. dated 30.08.2016 and Annexure-A9 GO(P) No.206/2016/G.Edn. Dated 08.12.2016, the candidates who have passed C-TET are exempted from passing K-TET. Further, the qualifications prescribed in Annexure-A1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017, issued by the PSC, are in consonance with the norms regarding equivalence of C- TET in terms of Annexure-A8 GO dated 30.08.2016 and Annexure A9 GO dated 08.12.2016. According to the petitioner, the subsequent OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 4 :- norms issued by the Government, as per Annexure-A12 Government circular dated 09.03.2018, cannot, in any manner, affect the selection process covered by Annexure A1 notification dated 18.08.2017, as the rules and norms, as it existed at the time of Annexure-A1 selection notification alone, can govern the field and subsequent norms if any, issued by the Government cannot be the basis for affecting the present selection process. The petitioner would point out that the Tribunal has essentially upheld the legal contentions of both the applicants, but has denied relief to the petitioner herein/Original Applicant on the sole ground that he could not attend the interview, conducted by the PSC. Whereas, the other applicant, covered by OP(KAT) No.148/2022, had attended the interview, on the basis of an interim order granted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has taken the view that, since the legal issues are in favour of the applicants, relief could be granted to the applicant covered by OP(KAT) No.148/2022. That relief was denied to the present applicant covered by OP(KAT) No.82/2022 on the sole ground that she could not attend the interview. In that regard, Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned Counsel appearing for the OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 5 :- petitioner/applicant, would point out that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner herein was invited for the interview process by the PSC themselves and it was on the day of interview that the rejection memo was communicated to her and she was not permitted to attend the interview. Hence, there was no time for her to challenge the rejection of her candidature. Whereas, in the case of the other applicant, her candidature was rejected and she had approached the Tribunal and could secure interim order, directing the PSC to interview her. Such an opportunity was denied to the petitioner herein, as she was already invited for the interview and it was only on the day of the interview that the PSC has taken the stand, not to interview her and to reject her candidature. Hence, the petitioner’s counsel would strongly argue that the stand taken by the Tribunal, in having denied relief to the present petitioner, after having found the legal issues in her favour, cannot be justified. 4. Taking note of these aspects, this Court has passed a detailed interim order on 29.03.2022, directing that the respondent PSC authorities should interview the petitioner for the abovesaid selection process etc. Later, this Court has passed an interim order to OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 6 :- provisionally include her in the rank list, after assessing her marks in the written examination and the interview process and to provisionally assign her ranking for inclusion in the ranklist. In compliance of the said interim order, the respondent PSC authorities has reported that, going by the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination and the interview, which she attended pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, her merit has been assessed and her rank has been provisionally assessed as rank no.107A, to be placed in between rank no.107 and rank no.108 in the ranklist already finalized. According to the petitioner, she is entitled for OBC reservation and that, candidates having lesser merit than her has been adviced, bypassing her advice turn, going by her merit etc. This Court has passed interim order dated 01.06.2023, directing that one unfilled vacancy in the post of Full Time Junior Language Teacher, Hindi, Malappuram District should be kept vacant, in case persons having lower merit than the petitioner has already been adviced. 5. The PSC has taken their stand in Ext.P4 reply statement dated 27.03.2021, filed in the instant OA(Ekm) No.8/2020. OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 7 :- ## Paragraph nos.6 to 9 of Ext.P4 reply statement dated 27.03.2021, filed by the PSC in OA(Ekm) No.8/2020, read as follows: “6. KTET Category -IV Examination is prescribed for Hindi Language Teachers of Upper Primary Classes. Later Government issued a clarification regarding the exemptions to the TET qualification In Circular no.1866829/13/17/GEdn dated 09.03.2018. JAnnexure A8 & A9,GO's were referred in the above Circular. It was stated therein that those candidates who have passed CTET Paper I - Primary Stage were exempted only from passing KTET Category- I & and those who have passed CTET Paper II - Elementary Stage vere exempted only from passing KTET Category- II .Since there was no Government Orders stating the equivalency of CTET & KTET -IV Examinations or no orders prescribed exemption to those who passed C.TET Paper I or CTET Paper II from passing KTET Category IV, Hon'ble Commission have ordered on 10.04.2019, to reject the applications of those candidates who have only qualified CTET Paper I - Primary Stage & CTET Paper II - Elementary Stage, for the said post. As such the applicant was not permitted to attend the interview. The application was rejected accordingly. The ranked list for the post was published on 21/08/2020 and 88 candidates are advised from the said list upto 17/02/2021. The last advice position is as follows: ## RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED |RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED|RANK UPTO WHICH ADVISED| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |OC|E|SC|ST|M|LC/AI|OBC|V|SIUCN|HINDU<br>N|SCCC|D|LP<br>LV|H<br>I|LD/<br>CP| |69|71|126||80|113|88|72||128|84|87|||1| 7. The applicant in the OA contents that the Government of Kerala by G.O. (P)No. 145/16/G.Edn dated, 30/08/2016 clarified that, the candidates who have qualified C-TET are exempted from acquiring K-TET. G.O. No.206/2016/G.Edn Dated, 08/12/2016 reiterated that the candidate who passed C-TET in the respective subject are exempted from passing K-TET. GO (P)No. 145/2016 dt. 30.08.2016 and GO (P) No. 206/2016 dt. 08.12.2016 are referred as reference no. 4 & 5 in the Circular No. 1866829/33/17/GEdn dated 09.03.2018. But the exemptions provided does not cover the KTETIV Examinations which is mandatory qualification for the Impugned post. No exemption is allowed in the clarification order OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 8 :- to those who possess CTET Paper I /Paper II in acquiring KTET Category IV. On the basis of the above guidelines also it can be seen that there is no irregularity in rejecting the application of the post. 8. In para (1)and (1) of the amended OA the applicant claims that in the reply statement filed by the Commission mentioned circular no.1866829/33/17/G.Edn dated 09/03/2018 and this circular is after the date issuance of the notification for the post dated 18/08/2017. The averment of the applicant is that the rejection of application pursuant to Annexure A1 notification cannot be substantiated with Annexure A12 circular which is issued after the date of notification. But the fact is that the Annexure A12 circular only defines the conditions In GO (P)No. 145/2016 dt. 30.08.2016 and GO (P) No. 206/2016 dt. 08.12.2016.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment In State of Bihar & others V Ramesh Prasad Varma has laid down the dictum that a subsequent order which is clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport which is issued to supply omission or clear any doubts In any prior law, would have retrospective effect from the date of the prior order. 9. As per the directions of SCERT regarding K TET, K TET Category IV examination was prescribed for Hindi Language Teachers of Upper Primary Classes. Also as per the government Circular No. 1866829/33/17/GEdn dated 09.03.2018, it is stated that those candidates who have passed CTET Paper 1- primary Stage were exempted only from KTET category- 1 and those who have passed CTET Paper II -elementary stage were exempted only from KTET Category-II. Since there were no Govt. Orders stating the equivalency of CTET & KTET IV examinations, Commission have ordered on 10.04.2019 to reject the applications of candidates who have qualified CTET paper I - Primary Stage and CTET paper II- elementary stage for the said post. The above read circular clearly defines the existing Govt. Orders GO(P) No.145/16/G.Edn dated 30.08.2016 and GO(P) No.206/16/G.Edn dated 08.12.2016. From this, It is clear that the circular dated 09 /03/2018 (after the date of Publishing Notification) only defines the existing Govt Orders / the Guidelines .The SCERT Guidelines which is available even before the Notification clearly states the need for KTET -IV for language teachers upto upper prima14ry level. Hence the OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 9 :- application was rejected due to ineligibility of the candidates as per the existing rules.” 6. Therein, the main aspect emphasized by the PSC is that the Government has subsequently issued Annexure-A12 circular dated 09.03.2018, stating that those candidates, who have passed C- TET paper I- primary stage are exempted from K-TET category I and those who have passed C-TET paper II, elementary stage, are exempted only from K-TET category II. That, since there are no Government orders stating the equivalency of C-TET and K-TET – IV examinations, the PSC has ordered, on 10.04.2019, to reject the application of the candidates who have qualified C-TET, paper I – primary stage and C-TET, paper II, elementary stage for the said post. Further that, the aforesaid circular dated 09.03.2018 has also referred to the previous Government orders, as per Annexure-A8 GO dated 30.08.2016 and A9 GO dated 08.12.2016. Further that, the SCERT (State Council for Educational Research & Training) Guidelines, which were available even before Annexure-A1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017, clearly speaks about the need for K- TET – IV language teachers, upto primary level etc. That, in the instant case, applicants in both the cases have only C-TET paper II OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 10 :- Elementary Stage and such candidates are exempted only from K- TET category II and whereas, for teaching at the primary school level, K-TET-IV is required for language teachers, which is not possessed by the above applicants. There are no factual disputes regarding the qualifications actually prescribed in Annexure-A1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017. The possession of BA (Hindi) degree by both the applicants are not seriously in dispute. The only dispute is regarding the equivalence of C-TET qualification viz a viz K-TET qualification. Qualifications are stipulated in Clause No.7 of Annexure-A1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017 and what is relevant for the present cases are only sub-clause (2) thereof, which reads as follows: “7. Qualifications (2)Must have passed the Kerala Teacher Eligibility Test (KTET) for this post conducted by the Government of Kerala Exemption : Candidates who have qualified CTET/NET/SET/M.Phil/Ph.D/M.Ed. In the respective subjects are exempted from acquiring K-TET (G.O.(P) No.145/16/G.Edn. Dated 30.08.2016 and G.O.(P) No.206/16/G.Edn. Dated 08.12.2016) Note: M.Phil in the concerned subject be the one awarded by any of the Universities in Kerala or recognised as equivalent by any of the Universities in Kerala. Rule 10 a (ii) of the Part II KS & SSR will be applicable.” 7. A reading of Clause 7(2) of Annexure-A1 selection notification would make it clear that, what has been stipulated OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 11 :- therein is that the candidates should have passed K-TET qualification conducted by the Government of Kerala. However, in the exemption clause thereunder, it is clearly stated that candidates, who have qualified C-TET and some other qualifications mentioned therein, are exempted from acquiring K-TET. This has been so ordered in terms of Annexure-A8 & A9 Government orders dated 30.08.2016 and 08.12.2016, respectively. A reading of Annexure-A8 GO dated 30.08.2016 and A9 GO dated 08.12.2016 would also make it clear that the Government has clearly prescribed therein that K- TET qualification is required, but that, candidates, who have qualified in C-TET and certain other qualifications mentioned therein are exempted from acquiring K-TET. No other further conditionalities are attached either in paragraph 7(2) of AnnexureA1 selection notification or in the relevant clauses in Annexure-A8 and A9 GO, which were in force, at the time of issuance of AnnexureA1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017. Annexure-A12 circular has been issued by the Government only on 09.03.2018, which is much after the issuance of Annexure-A1 selection notification dated 18.08.2017 and even the last date prescribed therein, for submission OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 12 :- of application which is 20.09.2017. Hence, we are of the view that the norms that are prescribed in Clause 7(2) of Annexure-A1 selection notification on the basis of Annexure-A8 & A9 GOs, will govern the field, in which case, C-TET qualification holders are exempted from passing K-TET qualification. 8. Further, it is also well settled that the selection agency or recruiting agency is not vested with any power to deviate from the qualifications prescribed as per the selection notification, which is on the basis of rules of recruitment issued by the appointing authority (See Udayan vs. KAMCO Ltd. [2011 (3) KLT 952], Remani E vs. KPSC (WP(C) No.22495/2018 ). Further, it is also well settled in decisions as in Suma vs. KPSC (2011 (1) KLT 1 (FB) and the decision of the Apex Court in Nagaland PSC vs. State of Nagaland (2017 (13) SCC 498) , that the PSC will have to go by the qualifications prescribed in the rule and it has no authority to improve upon the qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules and it is for the appointing authority/Government authorities etc to amend the qualifications, in the manner known to law. Further, it is also well settled, by various decisions of the Apex Court that OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 13 :- prescription of qualification would be within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority and not the selection authority. 9. The specific contention of the PSC in that regard is that Annexure-A12 Government circular is only a clarification of the preexisting position and therefore, will not amount to change of the rules of the game after the commencement of the game. This is strongly opposed by the learned Advocates appearing for the applicants. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the qualifications prescribed in Clause 7(2) of Annexure-A1 selection notification are on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the Government, as per Annexure-A8 & A9 GOs, which were holding the field as on the last date of submission of applications as per Annexure-A1. The prescription of qualifications in paragraph 7(2) of Annexure-A1 as well as in Annexure-A8 and A9 GOs are clear and specific and it is to the effect that C-TET qualification holders are exempted from acquiring K-TET qualification. The further fine tuned subtle distinctions, sought to be made out in Annexure-A12 circular, are not even remotely contemplated in Annexure-A8 & A9 GO or in paragraph 7(2) of Annexure-A1 selection notification. OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 14 :- Hence, we are not in a position to hold that the norms in AnnexureA12 GOs are only clarificatory or declaratory in nature. Further, there is also force in the submission of the Advocates for the applicants that Annexure-A12 is only a circular, whereas AnnexureA8 & A9 are Government orders, issued in accordance with the rules of business of the Government, in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of India. In other words, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the legal issues are in favour of the applicants. However, the Tribunal has erred, in the case of the applicant in relation to OP(KAT) No.82/2022, that she cannot be granted relief, merely because she could not be interviewed for the aforesaid reasons. There is no delay on the part of the present applicant, inasmuch as the PSC themselves had invited her to attend the interview and it is only on the day of the interview that she was told that she will not be interviewed and that her candidature was rejected. Now, the said applicant has been interviewed, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and she had also been provisionally included in the ranklist as rank no.107A. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 15 :- at Ext.P5 herein, to the limited extent that it has denied relief to the applicant in OA(Ekm) No.8/2020, will stand set aside. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent PSC authorities will consider the case of the petitioner herein on the basis of her merit in the written examination and interview and will issue addendum notification regarding her inclusion in the ranklist and in case, if any candidate having lesser merit has been advised, then she should also be advised for the abovesaid selection process by utilizing the vacancy that has already been kept vacant. In that regard, the PSC authorities will be at liberty to utilise the vacant post that has been kept unfilled as per the interim order dated 01.06.2023 or any other vacancy. The impugned verdict of the Tribunal will stand modified to the limited extent, as above. Hence, the respondent PSC authorities will ensure that necessary steps, for effectuating advice process as above, in respect of the Original Applicant, shall be duly completed without much delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. A third party to the OA proceedings before the Tribunal has filed an application to implead, some third parties in the OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 16 :- present OP. Their plea is that, under the guise of the interim order dated 01.06.2023 passed by this Court, in this OP, that one unfilled vacancy in the aforesaid post should be kept vacant, in case persons having lower merit than the petitioner has already been adviced, has been misconstrued by the respondent PSC authorities, with the result that the advice process, in respect of the other candidates, have also been stalled. Now, that we have rendered the abovesaid judgment, it is for the PSC authorities to ensure the advice process of other candidates also, in accordance with law,without any further delay. For that purpose, there is no necessity to entertain the impleadment application. 11. Towards the end of this common judgment, we would issue certain directions recording the stand of the State Government in regard to the requisite revision of the norms regarding the qualifications of the abovesaid post, in the light of Annexure-A12 Government circular. No other orders and directions are called for and the present OP is only to be disposed of accordingly. OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 17 :- OP(KAT) No.148/2022 [Arising out of the order of the KAT, Thriuvananthapuram, 2023 in OA(Ekm) No.1311 of 2019 dated 22.02.2022] 12. The judgment dated 14.08.2023 rendered by this Court in OP(KAT) No.82/2022 will regulate this case as well. This OP(KAT) has been filed by the PSC authorities as relief has been granted to the Original Applicant herein. In view of the aforesaid aspects, the plea of the PSC to set aside the impugned verdict of the Tribunal will stand rejected. We uphold the verdict of the Tribunal in relation to the present OA(EKM) No.1311/2019 as well. This Court has already passed interim order on 15.06.2023 on IA No.1/2023 in the present OP(KAT) No. 148/2022, wherein it has been, interalia, ordered that one post of full time junior language teacher, Hindi, Palakkad shall not be utilised for advice, in case any candidate having lower merit than the applicant has been adviced for appointment. It is seen, from a reading of paragraph no.15 of the impugned verdict of the Tribunal on the last page thereof, that the present applicant in OA (Ekm) No.1311/2019 has also participated in the selection process and has secured sufficient marks for being included in Annexure-A11 ranklist and directions have been issued OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 18 :- by the Tribunal to include her in the select list on the basis of her marks and that she will be entitled to be adviced for appointment, in accordance with law, without adversely affecting the appointments already made. However, the said relief has been granted to the Tribunal only in relation to the 2[nd] applicant in OA(Ekm) No.1311/2019, as the first applicant therein has not pressed for any relief. Further, it is to be noted that the present applicant has already been interviewed, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and the marks in her written examination and the interview are also known to the PSC. It is for the respondent PSC authorities to take steps for including the present applicant also in the ranklist in accordance with her merit assessed, on the basis of the written examination and interview for the above selection and then consider her for advise, as already directed by the Tribunal. Steps in that regard may be duly completed within the aforementioned time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before parting with this case, we would also note that we have earlier requested the Government to be alive to the concerns of the PSC, in not revising the qualifications in regard to C-TET – K-TET OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 19 :- equivalence on the basis of the Government circular no.1866829/J3/17/G.Edn dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-A12 in OP(KAT) No.82/2022 and so, the qualifications in terms of GO(P) No.145/2016/G.Edn. dated 30.08.2016 and GO(P) No.206/2016/G.Edn. Dated 08/12/2016, (produced as Annexures A8 and A9 respectively in OP(KAT) No.82/2022) may require alteration. In that regard, we had requested Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader, to get specific instructions from the competent authority of the State Government in the General Education Department and the authorities of the State Council of the Kerala State Council for Education Research Training (SCERT), may also be expeditiously consulted and so that the issue regarding the revision of qualification, on the basis of circular dated 09.03.2018, on the issue of equivalence of C-TET viz a viz K-TET, is duly finalized without any delay. Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 20 :- respondent State and Departmental authorities, would submit, on the basis of instructions, that they would immediately take steps to ensure that the consultation process of the PSC and the SCERT is completed without any further delay and the requisite action for revising the qualifications regarding equivalence of C-TET viz a viz K-TET in the light of the abovesaid aspects would be duly completed without much delay, preferably within 3 to 4 months. The said undertaking made by the respondent State authorities is recorded. To save further time, the respondent PSC authorities may immediately furnish their written views in the matter to the Principal Secretary/ Additional Chief Secretary to the Government in the General Educational Department, regarding the abovesaid aspects, preferably within 3 to 4 weeks, so that further delay could be avoided. So also, the competent authority of the SCERT may also ensure that their written views are given to the competent authority of the State Government, as above, on the abovesaid issues. The learned Additional Advocate General may ensure that a copy of this judgment is also immediately forwarded to the Director of SCERT, so that no further time is lost in that regard. Further, we also record ## OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 21 :- the submission of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, appearing for the respondent PSC authorities, that the PSC authorities will not issue the next selection notification, without the Government taking a decision on the abovesaid matter regarding equivalence of C-TET viz a viz K-TET. The abovesaid submission of the respondent PSC authority is also recorded. No other orders and directions are called for. 13. Accordingly, it is for the competent authority of the State Government to be alive to the concerns of the respondent PSC and the SCERT as the expert body in the field. Normally, the SCERT appears to have made their stand clear, as can be seen from a reading of the pleadings of the PSC and to avoid litigations of the present nature, the competent authority of the State Government shall act with all expedition and in a proactive manner, so that no time is lost, and that the next selection notification, if any, could also be issued by the PSC, on the basis of such revised qualifications. We make it clear that the benefit of the directions in this judgment will not inure to any person who has not sought to agitate the issue, within a reasonable time, for their claims in that regard will be ## OP(KAT) No.148/2022OP(KAT) No.82/2022 - : 22 :- barred by delay, laches and acquiescence. With these observations and directions, both these OP s will stand finally disposed of. sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE sd/- ## C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Nsd ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 148/2022`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|| |---|---| |`Annexure A1`|`ANNEXURE A1:- TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL`| ||`TEACHERS ELIGIBILITY TEST MARKS STATEMENT OF`| ||`THE FIRST APPLICANT 2014`| |`Annexure A2`|`ANNEXURE A2:- TRUE COPY OF THE K TET`| ||`CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE FIRST APPLICANT`| ||`DATED 26.06.2018`| |`Annexure A3`|`ANNEXURE A3:- TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL`| ||`TEACHERS ELIGIBILITY TEST CERTIFICATE ISSUED`| ||`TO THE 2ND APPLICANT DATED 15.06.2012 ISSUED`| ||`BY CBSE`| |`Annexure A4`|`ANNEXURE A4:- TRUE COPY OF KTET CATEGORY III`| ||`CERTIFICATE DATED 13.03.2019 ISSUED TO THE`| ||`SECOND APPLICANT`| |`Annexure A5`|`ANNEXURE A5:-TRUE COPY OF HTE KTET CATEGORY IV`| ||`CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE SECOND APPLICANT`| ||`DATED 23.06.2019`| |`Annexure A6`|`ANNEXURE A6:- TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED`| ||`BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN KERALA GAZETTE`| ||`DATED 18.08.2017`| |`Annexure A7`|`ANNEXURE A7:- TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.`| ||`145/16GEDN DATED 30.08.2016`| |`Annexure A8`|`ANNEXURE A8:- TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO. 206/16/G`| ||`EDN DATED 08.12.2016`| |`Annexure A9`|`ANNEXURE A9:- TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST`| ||`ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT NO.`| ||`08/2019/DOP DATED 14.05.2019`| |`Annexure A10`|`ANNEXURE A10:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.`| ||`PIII(I)2/2019 OF SECOND RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`29.05.2019`| |`Annexure A11`|`ANNEXURE A11:- TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST`| ||`DATED 14.09.2020 IN CATEGORY NO. 277/2017`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P1`|`EXHIBIT P1:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION`| ||`IN O.A (EKM) NO.1311/2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES`| |`Exhibit P2`|`EXHIBIT P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT`| ||`DATED 19.11.2020 FILED BY THE PSC`| |`Exhibit P3`|`EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE MA (EKM) IN OA`| ||`EKM 1311/2019`| |`Exhibit P4`|`EXHIBIT P4:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`22/02/2022 IN O.A(EKM) NO.1311/2019 OF THE`| ||`KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM`| ||`BENCH`| ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 82/2022`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED O.A.(EKM)`| ||`NO.8/2020.`| |`Annexure A1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING`| ||`CATEGORY NO.277/2017 DATED 18/08/2017`| ||`PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE`| ||`COMMISSION.`| |`Annexure A2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED`| ||`BY THE DAKSHINA BAHRATH HINDI PRACHAR SABHA`| ||`ALONG WITH MARK SHEET.`| |`Annexure A3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE`| ||`DATED 03/02/2017 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.`| |`Annexure A4`|`TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE OF C-TET JULY,`| ||`2013 (FOR CLASSES 1 TO V) CONDUCTED BY CENTRAL`| ||`BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION.`| |`Annexure A5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF (CTET),`| ||`SEPTEMBER, 2016 (FOR CLASSES VI TO VIII)`| ||`CONDUCTED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY`| ||`EDUCATION.`| |`Annexure A6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR INTERVIEW TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE PSC, MALAPPURAM`| ||`DISTRICT OFFICE.`| |`Annexure A7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT FROM THE WEBSITE`| ||`OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.`| |`Annexure A8`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.145/1/G.EDN.`| ||`DATED 30/08/16 OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION`| ||`DEPARTMENT.`| |`Annexure A9`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.206/2016/G.EDN.`| ||`DATED 08/12/2016.`| |`Annexure A10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY`| ||`THE PSC FOR THE POST OF HSA (HINDI) (PART-`| ||`TIME).`| |`Annexure A11`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST`| ||`NO.245/2020/SSII W.E.F. 21/08/20 BY EXCLUDING`| ||`THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT.`| |`Annexure A12`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR`| ||`NO.1866829/J3/17/G.EDN. DATED 09/03/2018.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED`| ||`29/01/2020 OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.FILED ON 13/01/2021`| ||`FILED BY THE PETITIONER.`| |`Annexure A13`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED BY`| ||`THE PSC SHOWING THE DATE OF ADVICE OF 53`| ||`CANDIDATES AS 21/10/2020.`| |---|---| |`Annexure A14`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION RESULTS`| ||`PUBLISHED ON 30/05/2020 OF THE APPLICANT`| ||`PASSING K-TET (CATEGORY-III).`| |`Annexure A15`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION RESULTS`| ||`PUBLISHED ON 30/05/2020 OF THE APPLICANT`| ||`PASSING K-TET (CATEGORY IV).`| |`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT`| ||`ON 27/03/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND`| ||`2.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2022 IN`| ||`OA (EKM) NO.8/2020.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE "CASE`| ||`DETAILS" OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.8/2020, AS`| ||`UPLOADED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KERALA`| ||`ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.`| |`Ann A16`|`A true copy of the notification published`| ||`having category No.625/2022, 603/2002 by the`| ||`PSC`| |`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`|| |`Exhibit R4(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF PERFORMA FOR REPORTING VACANCIES.`|