SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ.
Kerala Public Service Commission - Petitioner
Versus
Manjusha Lakshmi - Respondent
O.P. (KAT) No. 77 of 2022 & connected cases
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.C. Sasidharan, Samsudin Panolan & A.B. Lira.
For the Respondent: K. Mohanakannan, P.K. Sreevalsakrishnan, P.K. Ibrahim, P. Sreekumar, K.B, Sreeji, Fathima Fidha, T.G. Sunil (Pranavam), J. Om Prakash, C.X. Antony Benedict, T.G. Manoj, T.G. Santhosh, T.G. Mahesh, Emmanual Sanju & Sandeep T. George (Government Pleader).

Regular BSc Optometry qualifications are considered valid and superior under Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II KS & SSR for eligibility in the selection process.

Headnote:KEYWORD: Qualification Subject: Eligibility for Optometrist Grade II position ACT SECTION LIST: Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II KS & SSR SUMMARY: The court addressed the eligibility criteria for the post of Optometrist Grade II in the Health Services Department. The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) rejected applications from candidates with BSc Optometry qualifications obtained through distance education, stating that they did not meet the required criteria. However, the tribunal found that BSc Optometry obtained through regular study was a superior qualification as per Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II KS & SSR and deemed it applicable to the selection process. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the rejection of applicants with regular BSc Optometry qualifications was unwarranted.

Fact of the Case:

The PSC rejected applications from candidates with BSc Optometry qualifications obtained through distance education, leading to a legal challenge before the tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The tribunal held that regular BSc Optometry qualifications were valid and applicable to the selection process, overturning the PSC's rejections.

Issues:

Eligibility criteria for the post of Optometrist Grade II and validity of BSc Optometry qualifications obtained through regular study.

Ratio Decidendi:

Regular BSc Optometry qualifications were considered valid and superior as per Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II KS & SSR, making applicants eligible for selection.

Final Decision:

Original Petitions (KAT) 59 of 2022 and 77 of 2022 were dismissed, while Original Petitions (KAT) 64 of 2022 and 212 of 2022 were allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) is aggrieved by the order in OA Nos.206/2021, 240 of 2021, 147 of 2021 and 202 of 2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby, the original applications preferred by the party respondents were allowed holding them to be eligible to apply for the post of Optometrist Grade II in the Health Services Department pursuant to the notification dated 14.11.2018 as category No.217/2018.

2. The short facts leading to the original petitions are as follows:-

    The Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) invited applications from the qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Optometrist Grade II in the Health Services Department prescribing the following qualifications:

“Qualifications

(1) Pass in Pre-degree with Physics, Chemistry and Biology OR Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as optional subjects or equivalent qualification

 

(2) Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant Course (2 years) conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala or equivalent qualification.”

3. The party respondents/applicants before the Tribunal were graduates in BSc Optometry Course from the Universities recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The PSC issued a communication dated 22.12.2020 to the applicants requiring them to upload the TC/Course Certificate from the institutions in which they underwent the BSc Optometry course within five days and also to get the same verified from the local office of the PSC. It further stipulated that in case the BSc Optometry Course was undertaken under the Distance Education Scheme, then the Government Order enabling the acceptability/equivalence of the course was also to be produced. The PSC thereafter finding that the documents requested for by them were not produced, rejected the applications on three grounds namely that the documents sought for by them were not produced, the internship of the BSc Optometry Course was not completed before the last date of the application and thirdly the BSc Optometry Course undergone under the Open/Distance Education Course was not acceptable and consequently rejected the applications of those included in the ranked list for selection. The orders of rejection were challenged before the Tribunal by the applicants contending that they had the requisite qualification of BSc Optometry which is a higher/superior qualification to that of Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant Course. They had applied for the post and took the written test and were included in the probability list. It is after their inclusion in the probability list that they were asked to upload the certificates, which they did through their profile for one time verification of the documents as mentioned above. During the pendency of the original applications, the PSC had brought into force the ranked list for the post of Optometrist Grade II with effect from 29.4.2021.

4. The petitioner - PSC contended before the Tribunal that the applicants did not upload the certificates sought for by them to prove that the qualification possessed by them and that it was one acquired through a regular course of study, or through the Distance/Correspondence/Open Course. It is further contended by the petitioners that as per Rule 10(1)(ii) of the Part II KS & SSR, it had decided to accept the BSc Optometry decree course obtained through the regular course of study as higher qualification. It is also their contention that TC/ Course certificate produced by the applicants did not make it clear whether the course they undertook was part of a regular study as practical and internship was integral part of the course. For these reasons the rejections the rejection of the applications were sought to be sustained.

5. The applicants had filed a rejoinder to the reply statement reiterating that they were fully qualifie

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top