1. Appointment for Lower Division Typist — Dispute over the timing of acquiring a Computer Word Processing certificate for candidates with equivalent qualifications passed prior to 2002. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1320
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Beena R. - Appellant
Versus
Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9843-9844 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19949-19950 of 2015]
Decided On : 28-07-2017
Important Points
The distinction between possessing and producing a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing, as well as the background of candidates who qualified prior to 2002, influenced the court's decision in interpreting the qualification requirements for the appointment of Lower Division Typist.
Subject
Employment Law - Qualification Requirements
Headnote
Qualification - Lower Division Typist - The court interpreted the qualification for the appointment of Lower Division Typist and emphasized the distinction between possessing and producing a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant possessed an equivalent qualification to KGTE Typewriting but did not have a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing as required by the Notification. She was included in the Rank List but faced objections regarding the timing of acquiring the Computer Word Processing qualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's possession of an equivalent qualification to KGTE Typewriting and the timing of producing the certificate in Computer Word Processing were crucial distinctions that were not noted correctly by the High Court. The court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant's appointment in accordance with her position in the Rank List.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the qualification requirements for the appointment of Lower Division Typist, specifically regarding the possession and production of a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing.
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial distinction between possessing an equivalent qualification and producing a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing, as well as the background of candidates who qualified prior to 2002, influenced the court's decision to set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed the appellant's appointment in accordance with her position in the Rank List within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhilash M.R., Mr. Ranjan Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipin Nair, Mr. P.B. Suresh, Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhilash M.R., Mr. Ranjan Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipin Nair, Mr. P.B. Suresh, Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh
Table of Contents
2. Whether the requirement to produce a qualification certificate implies possession by the notification date or merely production during the verification or appointment process. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. The term produce in the context of candidates qualified prior to 2002 allows for the submission of certificates during verification, examination, or appointment. (Para 4 )
4. Where a notification requires a candidate to produce a certificate, such requirement is satisfied if produced during verification or examination, regardless of the acquisition date. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Direction to appoint the appellant in accordance with the rank list position. (Para 5 )
6. What is the legal interpretation of the word produce regarding qualification certificates in recruitment notifications?
The word produce indicates that the required certificate can be submitted at the time of verification of records, the written examination, or at the time of appointment. (Para 4 )
7. How does the requirement for Computer Word Processing certificates apply to candidates who passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002?
Because Computer Word Processing was not part of the KGTE curriculum prior to 2002, candidates who qualified before that date must additionally produce a separate certificate in that subject. (Para 4 )
8. Does the requirement to produce a certificate differ from the requirement to possess it by the notification date?
Yes, in the context of candidates qualified prior to 2002, the expression produce allows for the certificate to be submitted during the selection process, creating a distinction from a strict possession deadline. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The qualification for appointment of Lower Division Typist is prescribed in the Notification, which reads as follows :-
“7. Qualifications :
1. S.S.L.C. or its equivalent qualification.
2. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting.
3. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent (G.O.(P) No. 17/2005/P&ARD dated 09.05.2005.
Note 1 : Those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002 should produce separate certificate in Computer Word Processing or its equivalent.
Certificates in Computer Word Processing issued by Central, State Government Departments/Agencies/Societies, Universities after successfully completing course of study not less than three months duration are considered as equivalent.”
3. Since the appellant herein possessed only a National Trade Certificate, the initial objection was that the same was not the equivalent to the prescribed qualification. That objection was recalled by the Public Service Commission and the appellant was included in the Rank List at Rank No.7. However, an objection was later taken that the Computer Word Processing possessed by the appellant is acquired only after the last date of Notification in 2009.
4. In the case of the appellant, what she possessed is not KGTE Typewriting, but the equivalent qualification which has been approved by the Public Service Commission, in which case, what she is required is only to produce a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing. It may be seen that Note 1 says that those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January, 2002, should produce separate certificate in Computer Word Processing. It is not in dispute that the appellant possesses an equivalent qualification of KGTE (English) Typewriting, but she did not have a separate certificate as far as the Computer Word Processing is concerned. No doubt, it is also a prescribed qualification. However, relaxation has been granted to those who acquired the qualification of KGTE prior to 2002, for producing a certificate regarding Computer Word Processing. Once the word 'produce' is used, it can only be at the time of either verification of the records or at the time of written examination or at the time of appointment. In the case of the appellant, she had produced the certificate prior to the written examination and on the basis of her marks obtained, she has been assigned Rank No. 7 in the Rank List. Unfortunately, this crucial distinction has not been noted in the correct perspective by the High Court. There is also a background for this Note. Prior to 2002, Computer Word Processing was not otherwise part of the curriculum of KGTE, it was introduced subsequently. That was the reason, the Note was introduced. Those who possessed the qualification prior to 2002 should additionally have the Computer Word Processing and they should also produce a separate certificate in that regard.
5. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts of this case, we find it difficult to appreciate the contention, though vehemently advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission that the Notification required the applicant to possess the Computer Word Processing as well. That possessing read with the expression 'produce' in the background of those candidates who qualified prior to 2002, makes the whole difference. In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be appointed in accordance with her position in the Rank List. This should be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In the event of any unlikely delay, the appellant shall be deemed to be in actual service from 01.11.2017.
There shall be no order as to costs.
