SUDHA PANNERI Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the action of the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), in not considering her experience, evidenced by Exhibit P6 Certificate, as one required under Exhibit P1 notification. The appellant was an applicant to the post of Computer Assistant in the Kerala Live Stock Development Board Limited; called for by Exhibit P1 notification of the Commission. The qualifications prescribed under Exhibit P1 notification was as under:

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge and also before us contended that the institute in which the appellant had experience was a "legal entity" as required under paragraph 21 of the General Conditions published by the Commission; which is verbatim reproduction of R. 10(ab) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short "K.S. & S.S.R."). It is also contended that the further reason for rejection being that the Labour Officer has not countersigned; is also not sustainable, since the Inspector under the Employees' State Insurance Act is an officer designated as Social Security Officer having powers of inspection of relevant material relating to employment of a person in an establishment and the establishment; by the said statute is enjoined upon to maintain certain books of accounts which, inter alia, is subject to verification by the Inspector appointed under the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Commission, however, maintains that a threadbare analysis of the term "legal entity" is not called for, since this Court is exercising circumscribed jurisdiction of review and the recruiting agency has to have sufficient elbow room in reasonably deciding the eligibility with respect to a candidate who has applied for public employment. The learned Standing Counsel also contends that the experience, in any event, is of a Programmer-cum-Faculty, as is evidenced by Exhibit P6, and the same cannot be equated with the job of a Computer Operator. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, would strenuously contend that the job responsibilities of a Computer Operator or equation thereof to the experience acquired by the appellant was not a reason for rejection by the Commission.