A Job Oriented Course (JOC) certificate is treated as equivalent to a Pre-University Course (PUC) qualification for government recruitment purposes; therefore, candidates holding a JOC diploma cannot be disqualified for lack of a PUC certificate.

7. As can be seen from the aforesaid eligibility/qualification criteria, respondent No.3 has prescribed that the requisite qualification would require the candidate to have obtained either PUC or ITI or other equivalent 3 years diploma course. In the instant case, a perusal of the certificate at Annexure-H dated 18.10.2004 issued in favour of the petitioner will indicate that the petitioner is shown to have been awarded job oriented pre-university diploma in vocational education. The question/issue as to whether a qualification whether a JOC certificate is equivalent to PUC certificate is no longer res integra in the light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of the State of Karnataka and another Vs. Sri. Raveendra Basavarajappa Emmi and another – W.P.No.22520/2018 dated 16.11.2018, Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. Sri. Rajkumar and others - W.P.Nos.9335-9338/2012 dated 05.09.2012 and Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. Raghuveersingh Thakur and others - W.P.No.47033-47039/2017 dated 08.12.2017.

8. In the case of Raveendra Basavarajappa Emmi (supra), this Court held as under:

“State has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of convenience) in Application No.283/2011 (Annexure-C) and in Review Application No.64/2017 (Annexure-D) respectively.

2. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that the 1^st petitioner herein issued notification dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure-A1) inviting applications inter alia, for appointment of twenty-two physiotherapists on the establishment of the 2^nd petitioner-Department. In response to the same, 1s t and 2n d respondents herein applied to the post of Physiotherapists contending that they had the requisite qualification. The said recruitment was made pursuant to Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Services (Recruitment to certain posts) (Special) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Special Rules’ for the sake of convenience). A Special Recruitment Committee (Committee) was constituted under the said Rules. The eligibility criteria in the form of age and educational qualification were prescribed, the mode of recruitment was notified and as per the schedule to Rules 4 and 6. Insofar as twenty-two vacancies in the post of Physiotherapists (General), the educational qualifications were as under:

1. Pass in PUC with Science as optional subject or equivalent qualification.

2. Must be a holder of Diploma in Physiotherapy conducted by Karnataka Paramedical Board.

4. According to the 1s t respondent, applicant after passing SSLC, he took up multipurpose Job Oriented Course conducted by the State Government for Vocational Education which is equivalent to PUC Science course. According to the 1s t respondent, the said course has been equated to PUC Science course by Bangalore University vide Annexure-A8. The 1^st respondent has also completed three year Diploma course in Physiotherapy and six months of internship conducted by the Karnataka State Board of Education in Physiotherapy. Therefore, the 1^st respondent contended that he was eligible to be considered for the post of Physiotherapists in Category-IIIA. When the Selection Committee published a provisional list of selected candidates on 14.05.2010, the name of the 1^st respondent figured in the said list. Although he had secured good marks in the two courses referred to above, when the final selection list was published on 15.07.2010 vide Annexure-A10, his name did not find a place therein. On account of the non- inclusion of h