C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. Yet again, the rejection of candidature by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'PSC') is to face the judicial scrutiny in the light of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules in Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for brevity 'KS & SSR'). This situation arose in the following background:- The petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Divisional Accountant in the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'KSEB') in response to a notification issued by the PSC with category No.53/2009. As per Ext.P12, the application of the first petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is lacking the qualification owing to non-possession of B.Com Degree with first class which is one of the prescribed alternative qualifications. The application of the second petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P13 assigning the same reason and an additional reason of non-fulfilment of requisite experience.

2. Essentially, the petitioners contend that they possess the requisite academic qualifications relying on Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules in KS & SSR. It is the further contention of the second petitioner that having accepted the experience certificate produced by the first petitioner, there was absolutely no reason at all for holding him ineligible on account of lacking the prescribed experience. According to the second petitioner, the certificate produced by him revealing the gained experience of seven years in the category of Special Grade Assistant in the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., which is a Government of Kerala undertaking should have been treated as sufficient to satisfy the requirement regarding the prescribed experience. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavits. Essentially, their contention is that Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules in KS & SSR got no application in the facts and circumstances of the case and being persons lacking the prescribed qualification of Graduation in Commerce viz., B.Com or any other qualification prescribed the petitioners cannot claim possession of the prescribed academic qualification for getting appointment as Divisional Accountant in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification. In the case of the second petitioner the stand is that he is lacking the prescribed experience as well.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. In view of the rival contentions, essentially, the first question to be decided is whether the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the provisions under Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules in KS & SSR for the purpose of holding them as qualified candidates for selection to the post of Divisional Accountant pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. Before adverting to the rival contentions in detail, it is only apposite to refer to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules in KS & SSR and the same reads thus:-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per rule 13(b)(i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and such of those qualifications which pre- suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post."

4. For deciding the applicability of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules in KS & SSR, the qualifications admittedly possessed by the petitioners are also to be looked into. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent-PSC with respect to the qualifications possessed by the petitioners it has been stated thus:-

1. Manikandan K -BBS+M.Com+1st class 3 years plus experience as LDC (Accounts Branch) in PWD.

2