JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to recast Exhibit P8 ranked list for Computer Assistant Grade-II with Category No.43/2016 by including the petitioner in the respective rank to which she is eligible as per the marks obtained in the selection process.” 2. Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- Public Service Commission invited application to the post of Computer Assistant Grade-II by gazette notification dated 22.03.2016 and the last date for submission of the application was 27.04.2016. One of the qualifications for the post was Higher Grade Certificate in K.G.T.E English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. According to the petitioner, before January, 2002 Computer Word Processing was not forming part of the curriculum of K.G.T.E. English Typewriting. Now Computer Word Processing is also part of curriculum of K.G.T.E. English Typewriting. Resultantly the qualification is comprehensively described as K.G.T.E English typewriting by candidates when they applied to various posts. Petitioner has mentioned in the application that she passed K.G.T.E. English Typewriting (Higher) without specifically denoting Computer Word processing as its components. The petitioner figured in the main list and she produced all the certificate for physical verification including Computer Word Processing Certificate. But when the rank list was published, her name was not found and on an enquiry it was informed that, since the petitioner had not mentioned Computer Word Processing specifically along with English typewriting (Higher) she was not included in the rank list. It is thus challenging the action of the PSC not including the petitioner in the rank list, this writ petition is filed. 3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit basically refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is stated that, the notification inviting application for the post of Computer Assistant Grade II in Universities in Kerala was published as Category No.043/2016 in the Gazette dated 22.03.2016 with the last date fixed for the receipt of online applications on 27.04.2016. The probability list for the post was published on 21.07.2016 and the Rank list was published on 03.10.2016. Petitioner has submitted her online application for the post on 30.03.2016. The probability list for the post was published on 21.07.2016 and the Rank list was published on 03.10.2016. Petitioner has submitted her online application for the post on 30.03.2016. It is also pointed out that, petitioner has claimed the Computer Word Processing English (lower) qualification in her profile on 05.08.2016 i.e., after the last date fixed for the receipt of online application on 27.04.2016. So also the petitioner has neither claimed nor proved the Computer Word Processing English (lower) qualification in her profile within the last date fixed for the receipt of application. Therefore in terms of Paragraph 16 of the General Conditions of notification a claim made subsequent to the application will not be entertained. Therefore according to the said respondent, the elimination of the petitioner from the final rank list is in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 5. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the basis of a judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9843-9844 of 2017 dated 28.07.2017 and has invited my attention to paragraph 3 to 5 which read thus:- “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 in concerned. No doubt, it is also a prescribed qualification. 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 in 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.” 6. Therefore it is submitted that, an identical issue was considered by the Apex Court and has interpreted the word 'produced' contained in the qualification prescribed, which means production of the document actually before the concerned authority at the time of verification of the documents. Therefore it is submitted that, an identical issue was considered by the Apex Court and has interpreted the word 'produced' contained in the qualification prescribed, which means production of the document actually before the concerned authority at the time of verification of the documents. I find force in the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the Apex Court judgment. Eventhough learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has a contention that, as per the general conditions of the notification, the qualification should be as on the last date of the application. But, since the Apex Court has considered the issue by interpreting the word 'produced' and held that the production of the document is the criteria to be adopted, undoubtedly that can only be at the time of verification of the documents. 7. Anyhow, the findings rendered by me as above may not find force in order to secure the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, since learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that, the rank list had only a validity from 3.10.2016 to 3.10.2019 and same was not extended any further. I also find that, no interim orders were passed by this Court when this writ petition was admitted to the files, to protect the interest of the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, since the rank list has expired, I do not think petitioner is entitled to get further relief on the basis of the issue raised by the petitioner in respect of the qualification and the production of the document at the time of verification of the documents and the findings in that regard rendered above. Therefore in short, the writ petition fails so far as the final relief sought for by the petitioner is concerned. Resultantly, it is dismissed.