Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
R. BEENA V/S KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & OTHERS, decided on Friday, July 28, 2017.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 9843-9844 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19949-19950 of 2015]. ] 28/07/2017
Judge(s) : KURIAN JOSEPH & R. BANUMATHI
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  C.R. Chithra Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary & Others,   03/04/2017.  

  Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy Versus Sushil Ansal & Another,   09/02/2017.  

  A. Jayakutty & Others Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat & Others,   01/09/2016.  

  D. Beena Versus Radha Lekshmi Vilasam(Rlv) College Of Music And Fine Arts & Others,   07/07/2016.  

  Nikhil P. Gandhi Versus State of Gujarat & Others,   15/06/2016.  

  Mahipal & Others Versus State of Delhi,   19/10/2015.  

  Common Cause Versus Subhash Jain, Ex-Councillor & Others,   19/02/2015.  

  Dr. Battula Parameswara Reddy Versus Charity International Trust, Chittoor town rep. by its Secretary C. Karunakara Babu(died) & Others,   13/02/2015.  

  M/s. Appolo Tyres Ltd. Versus M/s. H.M. Tyres & Another,   06/06/2014.  

  Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Others Versus State of Gujarat,   16/05/2014.  

  Shaji Thomas Versus State of Kerala represented by The Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala & Others,   03/02/2014.  

  K.L. Poly Versus State of Kerala, rep. by the Director of Prosecution High Court, Ernakulam & Others,   31/10/2013.  

  K.L. Poly Versus State of Kerala, rep. by The Director of Prosecution High Court, Ernakulam & Others,   30/10/2013.  

  D. Achyutha Reddy Versus State of A.P. through sho & Another,   24/09/2013.  

  N.S. Beena Versus The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Secretariat & Others,   20/05/2013.  

  Beena Rai & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others,   06/07/2012.  

  Tashi Dadul Bhutia Versus State of Sikkim,   15/11/2010.  

  Sudheesh Soman Versus The Kerala State Election Commission & Another,   11/10/2010.  

  Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi),   19/04/2010.  

  Twinkle Valiyakattil Versus Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, KPSC, Trivandrum & Others,   01/12/2009.  

  Rajalekshmy Balachandran @ A.B. Rajalekshmy, Upper Division Clerk, Regional Passport Office, Cochin & Another Versus Under Secretary (PV), Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, New Delhi. & Others ,   01/04/2009.  

  M. Mohammed Abdulla Versus State of Kerala & Others ,   25/09/2007.  

  Ashoka Kumar Thakur Versus Union of India & Others ,   29/03/2007.  

  Manishbhai Bharatbhai Shah Versus State of Gujarat,   28/02/2007.  

  State Versus Sidhartha Vashisht & Others ,   18/12/2006.  

  State Versus Sidhartha Vashisht & Others ,   18/12/2006.  

  K. Prabhakaran Appellant with Ramesh Singh Dalal versus P. Jayarajan Respondent with Nafe Singh and others ,   11/01/2005.  

  G. Anitha versus Beena Krishna & Others ,   04/06/2003.  

  The Manager Versus Suma.A.V. & Others ,   10/02/2003.  

  Manager, M. P. V. H. S. School Versus Girija ,   21/03/2002.  

  Unnikrishna Panicker Versus Bhasi ,   03/01/2001.  

  M.M. Dolichan Versus State of Kerala ,   14/11/2000.  

  Suraj Parkash Gupta Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir ,   28/04/2000.  

  Common Cause, A Registered Society Versus Union of India ,   03/08/1999.  

  C.K. Antony etc. Versus B. Muraleedharan ,   01/09/1998.  

  T.D. Benny Versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies ,   04/05/1998.  

  Kailash Suneja Versus Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department,   17/12/1997.  

  Kishore Shankar Signapurkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others,   19/08/1997.  

  Veeraraghavan Versus Lalith Kumar ,   19/10/1994.  

  J. Veeraraghavan, Proprietor, Maheswari Fashions Versus Lalith Kumar, Proprietor, Lalith Enterprises ,   19/10/1994.  

  Dada Silk Mills Versus Indian Overseas Bank and Banking Company, Surat,   20/07/1994.  

  Dr. P.K. Mohammed Rasheed Versus State Of Kerala ,   27/10/1993.  

  Samaru Das Banjare Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh,   24/04/1985.  

  SANJEEVE Versus LUIS ,   17/11/1980.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Kurian Joseph J.1. Leave granted.2. The qualification for appointment of Lower Division Typist is prescribed in the Notification which reads as follows :-“7. Qualifications :1. S.S.L.C. or its equivalent qualification.2. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting.3. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent (G.O.(P) No.17/2005/P&ARD dated 09.05.2005.Note 1 : Those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002 should produce separate certificate in Computer Word Processing or its equivalent.Certificates in Computer Word Processing issued by Central State Government Departments/ Agencies/Societies Universities after successfully completing course of study not less than three months duration are considered as equivalent.”3. Since the appellant herein possessed only a National Trade Certificate the initial objection was that the same was not the equivalent to the prescribed qualification. That objection was recalled by the Public Service Commission and the appellant was included in the Rank List at Rank No.7. However an objection was later taken that the Computer Word Processing possessed by the appellant is acquired only after the last date of Notification in 2009.4. In the case of the appellant what she possessed is not KGTE Typewriting but the equivalent qualification which has been approved by the Public Service Commission in which case what she is required is only to produce a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing. It may be seen that Note 1 says that those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002 should produce separate certificate in Computer Word Processing. It is not in dispute that the appellant possesses an equivalent qualification of KGTE (English) Typewriting but she did not have a separate certificate as far as the Computer Word Processing is concerned. No doubt it is also a prescribed qualification. However relaxation has been granted to those who acquired the qualification of KGTE prior to 2002 for producing a certificate regarding Computer Word Processing. Once the word 'produce' is used it can only be at the time of either verification of the records or at the time of written examination or at the time of appointment. In the case of the appellant she had produced the certificate prior to the written examination and on the basis of her marks obtained she has been assigned Rank No. 7 in the Rank List. Unfortunately this crucial distinction has not been noted in the correct perspective by the High Court. There is also a background for this Note. Prior to 2002 Computer Word Processing was not otherwise part of the curriculum of KGTE it was introduced subsequently. That was the reason the Note was introduced. Those who possessed the qualification prior to 2002 should additionally have the Computer Word Processing and they should also produce a separate certificate in that regard.5. In that view of the matter in the peculiar facts of this case we find it difficult to appreciate the contention though vehemently advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission that the Notification required the applicant to possess the Computer Word Processing as well. That possessing read with the expression 'produce' in the background of those candidates who qualified prior to 2002 makes the whole difference. In that view of the matter the appeals are allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be appointed in accordance with her position in the Rank List. This should be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In the event of any unlikely delay the appellant shall be deemed to be in actual service from 01.11.2017.There shall be no order as to costs.