JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the decision of the Kerala State Public Service Commission (for short, the ‘Commission’) excluding the petitioners from the rank list for the appointment in the post of Office Assistant in the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Limited (for short, the “Corporation”). 2. The Commission by notification dated 30/09/2009 invited applications for appointment in the vacancies of Office Assistant in the Corporation. The qualifications prescribed in the notification are as follows: i. B.Com degree from any recognised University. ii. Diploma in Computer Application. iii. Certificate in computerized system of Accounting. 3. The written test was conducted on 09/06/2011. The provisional rank list was published on 04/04/2012. Certificate verification was held on 18/04/2012 and 19/04/2012. After certificate verification, the petitioners were excluded from the rank list. Petitioners challenge this exclusion. 4. The main challenge in these writ petitions regarding their exclusion from the rank list, on the ground that the petitioners' certificates had not been issued by any of the institutions referred in the notice issued by the Commission dated 12/03/2014, is illegal. The said notice is produced as Ext.P8 in W.P. (C).No.14441/2014. It refers about 20 institutions and the certificates issued by those institutions alone are acceptable to the Commission. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Subhash Chand and Shri Govind Padmanaabhan contend that the decision of the Commission during the midway of the selection process prescribing criteria for acceptance of certain certificates is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the Commission cannot change the criteria for selection after the selection process commences. 6. The learned counsel Shri Subhash Chand appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14487/2014 relied on various judgments of this Court to substantiate his contentions. Some of the judgments are referred hereunder: i. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Lalitha Bai v. P.S.C. 1999 KHC 442) it was held that subsequent notification by the Government notifying another qualification as an equivalent qualification would apply only to future notifications. ii. In Mukesh K.V. v. State of Kerala and others, 2006 KHC 719) it was held that regarding qualifications equivalent to the qualifications provided in the special rules, the Commission has to take a decision regarding equal qualification before issuing notification inviting applications. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). ii. In Mukesh K.V. v. State of Kerala and others, 2006 KHC 719) it was held that regarding qualifications equivalent to the qualifications provided in the special rules, the Commission has to take a decision regarding equal qualification before issuing notification inviting applications. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.14441/2014 relied on the decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Vivina V.V. and others, ILR 2009 (2) Ker 420). Therein it was held that if the Commission wants to treat a particular qualification as a sufficient qualification, such decision has to be taken before the issuance of the notification inviting applications. 8. Yet another decision relied by the learned counsel Shri Subhash Chand is Suresh Kumar B. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others ILR 2012 (4) Ker. 139 : 2012 (4) KHC 83 ) wherein this Court held that once selection process has commenced the Commission cannot prescribe an equivalent qualification unless Special Rules of the particular departments prescribes it as such. Another judgment relied by the learned counsel is an unreported judgment in W.P.(C).No.12356/2007. In the said case, the Commission during the selection process had taken a decision that computer word processing qualification, acquired after undergoing a course of not less than three months duration, conducted by the Central or State Government Departments, Agencies, Societies or Universities, alone shall be accepted as equivalent qualification for computer word processing. It is submitted that this Court observed that by the impugned order the Commission has introduced a restriction, stating that certificates issued by the Central or State Government. Department and the institutions mentioned therein alone will be accepted is unsustainable. In fact, after going through the above judgment, it is clear that this Court did not lay down any law as the same was disposed saying that the petitioners therein were not affected by such restriction. 9. Therefore, in the light of the above judgments, the crucial aspect to be decided is whether the Commission has a right or power to prescribe that certain qualifications alone can be accepted as sufficient qualification for the purpose of recruitment. 10. 9. Therefore, in the light of the above judgments, the crucial aspect to be decided is whether the Commission has a right or power to prescribe that certain qualifications alone can be accepted as sufficient qualification for the purpose of recruitment. 10. The learned counsel for the Commission referred to the power available to the Commission under Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short, “KS & SSR”) particularly, to Rules ,10 and 13 Rule 10(a)(i)&(ii) of KS & SSR provides as follows: “(a)(i) The educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is” included or as specified in the executive orders of Government in cases where Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per rule 13(b)(i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and such of those qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post.” (emphasis supplied) Rule 13 (b)(1) of KS & SSR provides as follows: “(b) possesses such other qualifications as may be considered to be equivalent to the said special qualifications or special tests - (i) by the Commission in cases where the appointment has to be made in consultation with it.” 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submits that the Commission did not prescribe any qualifications or considered certain qualifications as equivalent, on the other hand they had only exercised the power vested with them, in terms of the aforesaid rules, to the extent of satisfying W.P.(C).Nos.14441/2014 & 14487/2014 that the qualifications possessed by the candidates from the institutions referred in the notification produced as Ext.Rl(b) are sufficient qualifications. It is submitted that a large number of candidates have produced certificates issued by different institutions which have no legal recognition or other recognition to find out credibility of such institutions. Therefore, the Commission decided that only certificates issued by . the institutions referred in Ext.Rl(b) are acceptable for the purpose of selection and recruitment. It is submitted that a large number of candidates have produced certificates issued by different institutions which have no legal recognition or other recognition to find out credibility of such institutions. Therefore, the Commission decided that only certificates issued by . the institutions referred in Ext.Rl(b) are acceptable for the purpose of selection and recruitment. The judgments relied by the petitioners have no relevance in these matters. The Commission, in fact, did not change the criteria of qualification nor did it declare that certain qualifications are alone the qualifications for the purpose of recruitment. The only exercise done by the Commission is acceptance of certificate issued by certain recognised institutions. 12. The petitioners have obtained certificates from institutions not referred in the decision of the Commission. The Commission has sufficient power in terms of Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS & SSR read along with Rule 13(b)(i) of the said Rules to take such decision. The petitioners have no claim that the institution which has issued certificate is having same standard or recognition as prescribed by the Commission. They have also no prayer to include the certificate issued to them to treat in par with the certificates issued by the institutions referred in Ext. R(l)(b). The Commission has a statutory duty to verify a certificate and attach credibility to such certificate. It is always open for the Commission to verify the credibility of a certificate. To verify such certificate, the Commission can device such norms for verification. Petitioners have no case that the norms fixed by the Commission for such verification is arbitrary, illegal or unsustainable. In fact, the Commission fixed norms for verification of certificates by relying on Ext. Rl(a) issued by the Government. Therefore, this Court uphold the Commission has such power to accept only certificates issued by certain institutions. Then the only question is exercise of Power is warranted or not. As noted above, the Commission exercised such power based on valid and cogent reasons. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, accordingly these are dismissed. No cost.