JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. One of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department by Annexure A1 notification dated 26.12.2014 of the Kerala Public Service Commission(PSC) is as follows: “3. Working experience of at least 1(One) year in a reputed (Govt. approved) automobile workshop which undertake repairs of both Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle fitted with Petrol and Diesel Engines.” Annexures A5 and A5(a) certificates of experience (duly attested by the Assistant Labour Officer) produced by the respondent were not accepted by the PSC during the scrutiny after the shortlist. It is in the circumstances did the respondent move the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking permission to attend the interview for inclusion in the final ranked list. 2. The PSC contended that the respondent fell short of the requisite period of one year working experience even if Annexures A5 and A5(a) certificates are accepted in so far as they are relevant. Annexure A5 certificate is for the period from 10.5.2010 to 25.4.2011 whereas the respondent acquired the basic qualification prescribed for the post only much later on 27.9.2011. Only the experience gained by a person after acquiring the basic qualification could be reckoned under Rule 10(ab) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR). The PSC added that Annexure A5(a) certificate is relevant only for the period upto 28.1.2015 which is the last date for submitting applications by Annexure A1 notification. The period from 10.5.2014 to 28.1.2015 will cover only 8 months and 18 days and cannot make up the period of one year working experience which is the necessary qualification. 3. The respondent did not seriously dispute that Annexure A5(a) certificate cannot have relevance beyond 8 months and 18 days though he relied on Annexure A5 certificate to make up the balance period. The respondent contended that he had passed the B.Tech Mechanical Engineering at the Examination held in April 2010 as per Annexure A6(a) Degree Certificate. Therefore the entirety of the period covered by Annexure A5 certificate should be counted which would exceed one year of working experience when totalled to satisfy the necessary qualification. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondent and has by Ext.P5 order directed the PSC to consider the candidature of the respondent for appointment. Therefore the entirety of the period covered by Annexure A5 certificate should be counted which would exceed one year of working experience when totalled to satisfy the necessary qualification. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondent and has by Ext.P5 order directed the PSC to consider the candidature of the respondent for appointment. The order of the Tribunal is assailed by the PSC contending inter alia that the respondent passed the B.Tech Examination only when the results were published after re-valuation. 4. We heard Mr. P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shabu Sreedharan, Advocate on behalf of the respondent at length. 5. There can be no doubt that working experience gained by the respondent after acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post alone can be reckoned under Rule 10(ab) Part II KS & SSR. The only surviving question is as to when the respondent has acquired the basic qualification -B.Tech (Mechanical) Degree which is equivalent to that prescribed in Annexure A1 notification. It appears that the respondent had written the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination along with the 8th Semester Regular Examination in April, 2010. But the respondent failed in the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination in the results published on 28.9.2010 necessitating him to apply for re-valuation of the answer scripts. This is evident from Annexure A7 letter addressed by the respondent to the Regional Officer of the PSC wherein he concedes that he passed on account of re-valuation only. Annexure A7 letter further states that 'it took almost one year by the University to publish the revised result' indicating that the revaluation results were published by 27.9.2011. No document is produced by the respondent to show the date on which the revaluation results of the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination were published. The period of 'almost one year' ended by 27.9.2011 on which date only can the respondent be said to have acquired the basic qualification of B.Tech (Mechanical) Degree prescribed. This is well beyond the period of Annexure A5 certificate (10.5.2010 to 25.4.2011) in which event such experience before the acquisition of the basic qualification cannot be reckoned. 6. Much was argued to contend that the benefit of re-valuation should relate back to the date of publication of the original results in which case the respondent should be deemed to have passed on 28.9.2010 itself. 6. Much was argued to contend that the benefit of re-valuation should relate back to the date of publication of the original results in which case the respondent should be deemed to have passed on 28.9.2010 itself. It should be noted that the respondent would be treated as a failed candidate in the examination till he was declared as passed when the re-valuation results were published. It is the date of the publication of the revaluation results that matters since the respondent who was hitherto a failed candidate was henceforth treated as having passed. Moreover Part II General Conditions published by the PSC which applies to all recruitments in addition to Part I for specific categories is clear on that aspect which is extracted below: “In the case of the Examination conducted by the University or any other competent authority, the candidates will be deemed to have passed the Examination only with effect from the date of official publication of the results of the Examination by the University or the concerned authority.” (emphasis supplied) The fact that the candidate had failed initially not on account of his fault and that he passed on re-valuation when the University rectified the mistake is of no avail to give the results a retrospective effect. Therefore the respondent is deemed to have acquired the Degree only with effect from 27.9.2011 which is the probable date of official publication of the re-valuation results. 7. Reliance was placed on Annexure A6(a) Degree Certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University to contend that the respondent has been 'placed in the First Class at the examination held in April 2010'. It was the period during which the 8th Semester Regular Examination was held along with which the respondent had written the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination. Annexure A9 answer elicited under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was also relied on by the respondent to show as to when the results of the Examination were published. It indicates that the results of the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination and the 8th Semester Regular Examination were published on 28.9.2010 and 18.8.2010 respectively. But it is a fact conceded that the respondent failed in the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination and was declared to have been passed on re-valuation only. It indicates that the results of the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination and the 8th Semester Regular Examination were published on 28.9.2010 and 18.8.2010 respectively. But it is a fact conceded that the respondent failed in the 5th Semester Supplementary Examination and was declared to have been passed on re-valuation only. Neither April 2010 nor 10.8.2012 (on which date Annexure A6(a) Degree Certificate was issued) is the starting point for the respondent to be recognised as a B.Tech (Mechanical) Degree holder. We may in this context echo the salutary words of Mr. Justice C.S.Rajan in Sreekanthan v. State of Kerala and others [ 1999(1) KLJ 949 ] as follows: “The date of the marklist is immaterial as far as the acquisition of the Diploma is concerned. It is the date of publication of the result that is relevant.” The irresistible conclusion therefore is that Annexure A5 certificate has no relevance and the period covered by Annexure A5(a) certificate is insufficient to make up the period of one year working experience. The Tribunal erred in directing the PSC to consider the candidature of the respondent and allow him to compete for the selection by Ext.P5 order impugned. We uphold the stand of the PSC that the respondent lacks the requisite working experience of one year and hence set aside Ext.P5 order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. The original petition is allowed. No costs.