In these Writ Petitions, the complaint is regarding the selection that was conducted by the PSC to the post of Vocational Instructor in Clothing and Embroidery.

2. In view of the common grievance highlighted by the petitioners, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and for the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No.20771/08.

3. The prayer sought in this Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P4 to the extend it has included additional respondents 4 to 7 at Rank Nos.1,6,7 and 8.

4. Ext.P1 is a notification that was published by the PSC inviting applications to the post of Vocational Instructor, Clothing and Embroidery. Filling up of the post is governed by Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Special Rules for short).

.5. For the post of Vocational Instructor, Clothing and Embroidery, the method of recruitment is by promotion, by transfer and by direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed for the post reads as follows:

.TABLE

.6. In Ext.P1 notification, qualifications as provided in the Special Rules have been mentioned. Responding to Ext.P1, petitioners submitted their applications and by Exts.P2 and P3, they were

.called for written test. The PSC finalised the rank list and Ext.P4 is the ranked list that was published. In the ranked list, petitioners have been ranked at SI.No.12 and 11 and respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 were included at Rank Nos. 1,6,7 and 8.

7. In this Writ Petition petitioners contend that respondents 4 to 7 do not possess the qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules and mentioned in Ext.P1. It is also their case that the 3rd respondent had not issued any order declaring M.Sc in Home Science as equivalent to pass in Vocational Higher Secondary Course in Clothing and Embroidery. It is stated that it is despite the absence of such declaration, the 3rd respondent has treated respondents 4 to 7 who are having M.Sc in Home Science and Pre Degree as eligible and included them in the ranked list at SI.Nos.1, 6,7 and 8 respectively. According to them, even as on 8/6/05, the last date for submitting applications in response to the notification, no such declaration of equivalency was made and therefore treating the aforesaid respondents as eligible and their inclusion in the rank list is illegal.

8. In W.P.(C) No.28075/08 also, the challenge is against the inclusion of the aforesaid respondents 4 to 7 at SI Nos.1,6,7 and 8 in the ranked list referred to above.

9. In W.P.(C) No.21783/08, the petitioner is a scheduled caste candidate. He is challenging the inclusion of additional 3rd respondent at SI.No.1 of the supplementary list.

10. Inso far as W.R(C) No.24150/08 is concerned, she is challenging the inclusion of the 4th respondent, who is also the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) Nos.20771/08 and 28075/08. The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions also impugned the inclusion of the aforesaid respondents on the ground that they did not possess the qualifications prescribed in the notification published by the PSC in terms of the Special Rules referred to above.

11. Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of this court in Sobha Menon v. Kerala Public Service Commission (1994 (1) KLT 986), Lalitha Bai v. Public Service Commission (1999 (2) KLT 894), Union of India v. Chandrasekharan ((1998) 3 SCC 694) and Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan ((2008) 3 SCC 724) to contend that although the PSC has the competence to equate qualifications, any such equivalency shall be done before the issuance of the notifications and that after the notification is issued, if the PSC decides on such equivalency, the option open to the PSC is to cancel the notification and issue a fresh one.

12. On the other hand, the standing counsel for the PSC mainly contended that the Special Rule itself recognised equivalent qualifications and it was therefore permissible for the PSC to equate such qualificat