S.MANU, J.
1. Kerala Public Service Commission is challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1789/2017, in this Original Petition.
2. The KPSC invited applications for selection to the post of Junior Instructor (Dairying) in Industrial Training Department vide Annexure-A1 notification dated 15.11.2012. Qualifications prescribed for the post in Annexure-A1 are extracted below:-
“6. Qualifications:
1) Pass in S.S.L.C or its equivalent qualification. AND
2) (a) National Trade Certificate in the concerned trade with three years experience in the trade after obtaining the certificate.
OR
(b) National Apprenticeship Certificate in the concerned trade with one year experience after obtaining the certificate.
(c) Diploma in the concerned branch of Engineering from a Government or Government Recognized polytechnic or its equivalent qualification.
Note:(i) The experience gained by a Workshop Attender in the trade can also be deemed to be qualifying experience in the trade for selection to this post.
(ii) Candidates belonging to SC/ST will be exempted from the qualification of experience prescribed in 2 (a) and (b) above.
(iii) The certificate to be produced in proof of experience shall be in the form given below.”
3. The respondent applied in response to Annexure-A1 notification. She attended the objective type OMR test held on 23.5.2014 and was included in the short list published on 04.02.2016. During the detailed scrutiny of applications of candidates included in the short list the respondent was found ineligible by the KPSC. The qualification of the respondent, B.SC. in Food Science and Quality Control offered by Mahatma Gandhi University was not considered as an equivalent qualification as mentioned in Annexure-A1. By Annexure-A4 letter dated 9.10.2015, the respondent was called upon to produce Government order/equivalency certificate to the effect that her qualification is equivalent to diploma in the concerned branch of Engineering. The respondent obtained a certificate from the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University dated 30.10.2015 and produced it in response to AnnexureA4 letter. The certificate is produced as Annexure-A6 in the original application. However, the Academic Committee of the Commission found that the qualification cannot be accepted as equivalent. Therefore, the respondent was not called for the interview. Then she approached the Tribunal. In the O.A. she prayed for direction to permit her to participate in the selection process and include her in the rank list.
4. The KPSC resisted the O.A. by filing reply statement. The Commission contended that the respondent failed to produce equivalency certificate within the time granted. The Academic Committee constituted by the Commission in its meeting held on 22.2.2017 considered the issue and suggested not to consider the qualification of the respondent as sufficient for the post. The suggestion of the Committee was approved by the Chairman of the Commission on 23.2.2017. It was also contended that Annexure-A6 certificate produced by the respondent was from the Registrar of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University and that the certificate only stated that the syllabi of B.Sc. in Food Science and Quality Control and that of Diploma in Dairy Science are comparable. PSC pointed out that the University did not say that the former qualification is equivalent to the latter.
5. In compliance with the interim order dated 15.9.2017 issued by the Tribunal the respondent was permitted to appear for the interview held on 19.9.2017 on provisional basis. However, her result was withheld.
6. The respondent filed a rejoinder before the Tribunal. Along with the rejoinder she produced an order issued by Higher Education (B) Department of the Government of Kerala dated 04.07.2019. In the said order the Government stated that on the basis of a report of the Member Secretary, Kerala State Higher Education Council, the Government have decided to order that B.Sc. Food Science and Quality Control awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University in Regular mode is equivalent to Diploma in Dairy Science of Kerala Vetenary & Animal Sciences University.
7. Learned Tribunal finally heard the O.A. and allowed it by order dated 16.10.2019. The Tribunal held that the respondent had produced Annexure-A6 certificate issued by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University in response to the notice issued by the PSC which was sufficient to show that her qualification was equivalent to the Diploma mentioned in Annexure-A1 notification. The Tribunal found that the Registrar of the University had stated that the syllabi of both courses are comparable. Tribunal noted that the word 'comparable' in essence denotes equivalence as per its dictionary meaning and therefore the Commission was not right in rejecting the said certificate. The Tribunal also noted that the Government, though at a later point of time, issued order regarding equivalency as claimed by the respondent. Therefore the Tribunal set aside the decision to exclude the respondent and direct the PSC to accept the candidature, publish her result and include her in the ranked list published on 30.10.2017 on the basis of her performance.
8. During the hearing of the original petition the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal and argued that the Tribunal went wrong in allowing the O.A. He cited the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Lalitha Bai v. PSC [1999 (2) KLT 894] to canvass the proposition that subsequent notification by Government on alternative qualifications can have applied only to future notifications and in selection process initiated before issuance of such notifications by the Government candidates with alternative qualifications cannot be included. He vehemently submitted that Annexure-A6 certificate issued by the University cannot be of any help to the respondent as the same did not certify in specific terms that her course was equivalent to the Diploma mentioned in Annexure-A1. He also submitted that the subsequent Government Order produced as AnnexureA13 also cannot be of any help because the said order was issued much after publication of ranked list. Hence, he asserted that the impugned order is illegal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the PSC was not justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent despite production of Annexure-A6 certificate. He argued that Annexure-A6 was issued by the concerned University and the certificate is clear in its terms regarding the equivalency claimed by the respondent. He further submitted that the same was later declared by the Government also by issuing Annexure-A13. He contended that his client has suffered injustice by rejection of her candidature and the order issued by the Tribunal is not liable to be set aside by this Court.
9. Apart from hearing the respective counsel we have perused the pleadings and documents also. We are of the view that the only controversy to be considered for deciding this original petition is regarding the effect and acceptability of Annexure-A6 issued by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University which was admittedly produced before the Commission by the candidate within time.
10. In paragraph 13 of the statement of facts in this original petition the PSC has contended as follows:-
“13. It is submitted that as per General Conditions Part II Para 14 "Documents in proof of prescribed educational qualifications, date of birth, community, experience etc. shall be produced at the time of interview or at any time as required by the Commission. Those who fail to produce the original documents as required above will not be interviewed/included in the Ranked List as the case may be". As per Para 17 "Candidates possessing qualifications equivalent to those prescribed for a post shall produce in addition to the documents referred to in Para 13 (b), sufficient proof obtained from a University or any other competent authority to the effect that the qualifications possessed by him are recognized as equivalent to those prescribed for the post". It is submitted that the applicant failed to produce proof regarding equivalency of her qualification as and when required by the Commission. Further the Annexure A6 certificate could not be accepted as the same did not declare the impugned qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification as mentioned in Para 17 of General Conditions.”
( Emphasis added )
11. It is clear from the above paragraph of the pleading of the Commission that the general conditions which need to be read in conjunction with Annexure-A1 notification contained a paragraph that candidates possessing qualifications equivalent to those prescribed were required to produce sufficient proofs obtained from a University or any other competent authority to the effect that the qualifications are recognized as equivalent to those prescribed for the post. Therefore, it is clear that paragraph 17 of the general conditions provided for production of sufficient proof regarding equivalency issued either by a University or any other competent authority. Hence, production of Annexure-A6 certificate issued by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University was in sufficient compliance with the requirement under paragraph 17 of the general conditions. Hence, the PSC cannot take up a contention that production of a certificate issued by the University was inadequate or improper. Then the remaining issue is as to whether the PSC is right in contending that Annexure-A6 did not certify specifically that the qualification of the respondent is equivalent to the qualification prescribed. In this context, we find it necessary to extract hereunder the contents of Annexure-A6 :-compliance with the requirement under paragraph 17 of the general conditions. Hence, the PSC cannot take up a contention that production of a certificate issued by the University was inadequate or improper. Then the remaining issue is as to whether the PSC is right in contending that Annexure-A6 did not certify specifically that the qualification of the respondent is equivalent to the qualification prescribed. In this context, we find it necessary to extract hereunder the contents of Annexure-A6 :-
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that on perusal the syllabus of the course B.Sc (Food Science and Quality Control) offered by Mahatma Gandhi University covers the engineering subjects prescribed for the Diploma in Dairy Science adequately and the syllabus of both courses in the engineering subjects are comparable and can be considered sufficient for discharging comparable duties such as Instructor (Dairying) in the Industrial Training Department.
This certificate is issued to Ms.Thulasi.B.Nair, Nandanam House. Kodungoor, Kottayam-686504 based on her request to produce the same before the Kerala Public Service Commission as part of the selection process for the post of Instructor (Dairying) in the Industrial Training Department.
Sd/-
REGISTRAR
KERALA VETERINARY &
ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
POOKODE, LADDIDI.P.O., WAYANAD”
12. It is true that the word 'equivalent' is not employed by the Registrar of the University in Annexure-A6 certificate. However, it has been specifically stated that the syllabus of the B.Sc. course underwent by the respondent covers the Engineering subjects prescribed for the Diploma in Dairy Science adequately and syllabus of both courses in the Engineering subjects are comparable. It is also stated that the syllabus of the B.Sc. course offered by Mahatma Gandhi University can be considered sufficient for discharging comparable duties such as Instructor (Dairying) in the Industrial Training Department. Reading of Annexure-A6 as a whole does not leave any doubt regarding the equivalence of B.Sc. Food Science and Quality Control offered by Mahatma Gandhi University and diploma in Dairy Science offered by Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University. The latter University has certified in clear terms that the syllabus of the B.Sc. course offered by the former University covers the Engineering subjects of its Diploma course in Dairy Science adequately. Though the word 'equivalence' is not employed, the lucid statements in Annexure-A6 are undoubtedly to the effect that the courses are equivalent. Therefore, we are of the view that the objection raised by the Commission against Annexure-A6 is arbitrary, hyper-technical and unrealistic. PSC was concerned about the form and not about substance, when it examined A6 certificate. Having permitted the candidates in the general conditions to produce certificates regarding equivalency issued by Universities, it was unnecessary for the Commission to refer the matter to Academic Committee and take a different view after the candidate produced A6 certificate, which actually is a certificate of equivalency.
13. We, after a close reading of the judgment cited by the learned Standing Counsel (Lalitha Bai v. PSC [1999 (2) KLT 894]) are of the view that the said judgment is not helpful to the PSC to advance its case. In the said case the issue considered and decided is different. The Division Bench of this Court was considering a case arising from selection to the post of HSA Hindi. In the reported judgment Division Bench has extracted the qualifications prescribed for selection to the post of HSA Hindi. The exact dispute was regarding the training qualification of the writ petitioner therein. Certain specific training qualifications were mentioned in the notification. Though equivalent qualifications were permitted in the case of academic qualifications, no such relaxation was provided in the case of training qualifications. The petitioner in the said case had a training qualification ‘Siksha Snathak of Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras’, which was not included in the training qualifications in the notification inviting application. Later, the Government issued a notification recognizing Siksha Snathak also as an alternative qualification. Therefore, the factual situation in the said case was that the notification did not permit any equivalent qualification in the case of training qualification and the training qualification possessed by the writ petitioner was not among the specifically prescribed training qualifications. On the other hand, Annexure-A1 notification in the case on hand permits equivalent qualifications also. Hence, the facts of the case cited by the learned Standing Counsel and the present case are totally different. Thus the conclusions of the Division Bench in the reported judgment cannot be applied in the present case. The PSC has referred to some other reported judgments also in the original petition to advance the contention that equivalency can only be of prospective effect. In the present case Annexure-A6 certificate was obtained by the respondent during the selection process in response to the notice issued by the PSC and as stated already, Annexure-A1 notification explicitly permitted those who are having equivalent qualifications also to apply. We have already adverted to the general conditions enabling the candidate to produce certificate of equivalency in the previous paragraphs. Therefore, law laid down in the judgments pointed out for the purpose of advancing the contention regarding prospective operation of declaration regarding the equivalency is also inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
14. Outcome of the above discussion is that the conclusions of the Tribunal are proper and justified. There is no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. We conclude that the Tribunal was right in allowing the O.A.
15. O.P.(KAT) is hence dismissed. The Commission shall take appropriate steps to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal at the earliest.
