KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. MEENU G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in all these appeals except WA No.164 of 2020 is the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, "PSC"). WA No.164 of 2020 is filed by the persons in the rank list; which appeals are filed with leave of this Court, since the appellants were not parties to the O.A. Respondents are persons, who were declined consideration in the selection to the post of Assistant Pharmacist. The appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which it is found that the respondents/writ petitioners having studied a paper in Basic Electronics and Computer Applications, as part of the B.Pharm course, were entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Assistant Pharmacist.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for all parties. It is submitted on behalf of the PSC that the notification specifically prescribed a pass in any computer course of not less than three months duration, recognized by the State or Central Government. There can be no equivalence granted by the Court as has been held in Bank of India v. Aarya K. Babu [(2019) 8 SCC 587] and Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others v. Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404]. The candidates without such a qualification were rightly denied consideration.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners seek to sustain the impugned judgment. It is also alternatively contended that many of the respondents have certificates in computer courses from institutions recognized by the Government and the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT). It is argued that even otherwise what is intended is only a working knowledge of computer applications, which the respondents had acquired by reason of the paper they qualified as part of the B.Pharm course. The paper also was in Basic Electronics and Computer Applications. In fact, the learned Single Judge has found that in a period of six months, they had undertaken the subject, which had two hours in theory and three hours in practical every week. In such circumstances, the respondents/writ petitioners are proficient in computers, even more than that of a candidate, who has passed a course of three months. It is argued that there are certificates from recognized institutions produced in the writ petition. It is also argued that there is nothing stated in the notification as to the exact course or the institution, from which the certificate should be produced. A different notification is pointed out to contend that it is specified therein that the certificate should be issued by the NCVT, which is absent here. No such specification having been made in the notification, there cannot be rejection of candidates only for reason of the rather vague qualification in computer course not being possessed by the respondents. The job of a Pharmacist also does not involve any application in computers and the prescription itself is arbitrary.