The judgment establishes that when a qualification is prescribed in the notification, the Public Service Commission, the Government, and the applicants are bound by the said qualification, and it is not legally permissible to search for equivalent qualification.

A.R. Lakshmanan, Ag. C.J.

Heard Mr. Asok M. Cherian for the petitioner and Mr. O.V. Radhakrishnan for the Public Service Commission. Both the petitions were filed by the very same petitioner - Lalitha Bhai. O.P. 10316/1998 was filed to call for the records leading to Ext. P3 and quash the same and for a mandamus directing the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission to permit the petitioner to appear in the written test scheduled to 6.6.1998 for recruitment for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) in Education Department. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that she passed SSLC in March 1980 and she successfully undergone the courses in Hindi, viz., Rashtra Bhasha, Praveshika, Visharath Poorvartha, Visharath Uthrartha and Praveen Uthrartha conducted by Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. Thereafter she passed in 1st Division the training course in Hindi Siksha Snathak in 1990 conducted by the Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. She applied for the post of H.S. A (Hindi) as per the notification of the Kerala Public Service Commission for Kottayam District. The petitioner was having qualification and was eligible for being recruited for the post. According to the petitioner, the Government had earlier not recognised the degree 'Siksha Snathak' as the requisite qualification for appointment as H.S. A. (Hindi). But the Government had issued a notification on 14.5.1998 recognising "Siksha Snathak' also as an alternate qualification for the post of Upper Primary/High School teacher in Government Schools. A true copy of the said order is marked as Ext. P2. But, disregarding Ext. P2 order of the Government, the Public Service Commission issued a memo to the petitioner stating that she does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of H.S. A. Hindi and the application filed by the petitioner was also rejected. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation to the Public Service Commission pointing out Ext. P2 Government Order and also requesting that the petitioner be given the hall ticket for the examination scheduled on 6.6.1998. Since the Public Service Commission has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and she was not given the hall ticket for the examination, the Writ Petition was filed to quash Ext. P3 and for the consequential prayer as already referred to in this paragraph supra. Ext. P3 is the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that she has not the requisite qualification.

2. During the pendency of the above Writ Petition, the petitioner also filed O.P. 14634/1999 to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to admit the petitioner, who is K.449 in Part VIII Nadar category in the supplementary list of Ext. P5 list, for the interview scheduled to be held for the candidate in that list. By Order dated 16.6.1999, the petitioner was directed to be interviewed provisionally nd included in the list.

3. When both the petitions were posted before J.B. Koshy, J., the learned judge has made an order of Reference, which runs thus:

"Petitioner in both the cases passed Hindi Siksha Snathak. By Ext. P2 Government recognised 'Acharya' title of Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabhaand 'Siksha Snathak' title of Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha as alternate training qualification for appointment to the post of Upper Primary/High School Teacher in Government Schools. But, petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that at the time of notification, Ext. P2 Government Order recognising 'Siksha Snathak' as equivalent training was not in force. According to the petitioner, it is recognised for aided schools earlier itself. It is only a recognition of the existing diploma. A contrary view is seen expressed by another learned judge in O.P. No. 16087/98-M. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the matter should be considered by a Division Bench of this Court ".

That is how the matter has come before this Bench.

4. W