JUDGMENT : P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J The petitioners herein are the respondents No.2 and 3 in O.A No.623/2018 on the file of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter mentioned as Tribunal). This petition is filed challenging the order dated 3.7.2019 in O.A. 623/2018 of the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the above original Application with following prayers: “1. Call for the records leading to Annexure A.9 and Annexure A.10 and set aside the same as legally and factually unsustainable. 2. Direct the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent to consider the candidature of the applicants to the post of H.S.A (Social Studies) pursuant to Annexure A6 notification untrammeled by their specialisation in Foreign trade along with Economics in graduation. 3. Declare that the applicants are entitled to be considered for the post of H.S.A (Social Studies) pursuant to Annexure A6 notification. 4. Such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Tribunal feel justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the applicants before the Tribunal is that, they applied for the post of HAS (Social studies) in response to a notification published by the Public Service Commission dated 31.12.2012 which is produced as Annexure A6 in the Original Application. According to the applicants, they are fully qualified for the post of HSA(Social Studies) as per the notification. The applicants before the Tribunal are graduates in Economics with Foreign Trade, awarded by the University of Calicut. As per the notification issued by the Public Service Commission which is produced as Annexure A6 before the Tribunal, the qualification prescribed is a degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed/BT/LT in the concerned subject conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. Concerned subjects are specified in Note 3(a) of Clause 7 of the notification; one of which is Economics. 3. The applicants are graduates in Economics with Foreign Trade. Therefore, by Annexure A9 and A10 letters produced before the Tribunal, the Public Service Commission asked the applicants to produce an order of the Government which shows that the degree of B.A (Economic with Foreign Trade) is an acceptable qualification. It is also stated that, on failure to produce the same, they may not be allowed to participate in the interview. The applicants approached the Government and the Government addressed the University to furnish a report in the matter. It is also stated that, on failure to produce the same, they may not be allowed to participate in the interview. The applicants approached the Government and the Government addressed the University to furnish a report in the matter. The applicants approached the Tribunal apprehending that they would not be allowed to participate in the interview. The Tribunal as per order dated 25.4.2018 directed the Public Service Commission to participate the applicants before the Tribunal, in the selection process, subject to further orders from the Tribunal and they were allowed to participate in the interview. But when the rank list was published on 3.10.2018, the results of the applicants were withheld due to the pendency of the Original Application. 4. Public Service Commission filed reply statement contending that the applicants cannot be treated as qualified to the post of HSA (Social Studies). According to the Commission, B.A (Economics) is the required qualification and the contention of the applicants that BA. (Economics with Foreign Trade) is the same as that of BA(Economics) or that it is sufficient qualification for appointment to the post cannot be accepted. The gist of the arguments of the Public Service Commission is that the applicants before the Tribunal are not having the required qualification as per the notification. 5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal based on the pleadings and the documents held that the applicants are having degree in the concerned subject as notified in Annexure A6 notification for the purpose of selection to the post of HSA(Social Studies). Consequent directions were also issued to the Public Service Commission. Aggrieved by the above order, the Public Service Commission filed the present O.P(KAT). 6. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the applicants before the Tribunal are not qualified as per the notification issued by the Commission as evident by Ext.P1 (A6). According to the counsel, as per Rules the qualification prescribed in the Rules or recognized by the executive orders alone can be the consideration for selection. Eventhough the candidates were directed to produce executive orders if any, declaring that the qualification sufficient to the post, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have not produced any certificates. According to the counsel, as per Rules the qualification prescribed in the Rules or recognized by the executive orders alone can be the consideration for selection. Eventhough the candidates were directed to produce executive orders if any, declaring that the qualification sufficient to the post, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have not produced any certificates. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on an unreported judgment dated 15.1.2013 in O.P(KAT) No.177/2013 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Lalitha Bai v. Public Service Commission ( 1999(2) KLT 894 ). The counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents herein supported the judgment of the Tribunal. 7. The point to be decided in this case is, whether the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are having sufficient qualification for applying to the post of HSA (Social Studies) as per Ext.P1(A6) notification of the Public Service Commission. For deciding the above issue, it will be convenient, if the relevant Clause in Ext.P1(A6) relating to the qualification is extracted. The relevant Clauses are Clauses 7 and Note 3A to Clause 7 of Ext.P1(A6) notification. The same is extracted here-in-below. “A degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed/BT/LT in the concerned subject conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala (Concerned subjects are specified in Note 3(a) below. 3(a) The applicants should have taken History or Economics or Geography or Politics or Commerce or Philosophy or Music or Sociology or Psychology as Main Subject for Graduation.” 8. On a perusal of the above Clause, it is clear that the qualification mentioned is a degree in the subject concerned and B.Ed/BT/LT in the subject concerned or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. In Note 3A it is specifically stated that the applicants should have taken History or Economics or Geography or Politics or Commerce or Philosophy or Music or Sociology or Psychology as main subject for graduation. 9. The applicants are having degree of Bachelor of Arts in Economics with Foreign Trade. Ext.P1(A1) is the certificate of the 1st respondent and Ext.P1(A2) is the certificate of the 2nd respondent. The question is, whether degree in Economics with Foreign Trade is a sufficient qualification as per Ext.P1(A6) notification. Ext.P1(A6) notification says that the qualification prescribed is a Graduation in Economics. In other words, in Ext.P1(A6) notification, the qualification is a degree in Economics and the applicants are having a degree in Economics with Foreign Trade. 10. The question is, whether degree in Economics with Foreign Trade is a sufficient qualification as per Ext.P1(A6) notification. Ext.P1(A6) notification says that the qualification prescribed is a Graduation in Economics. In other words, in Ext.P1(A6) notification, the qualification is a degree in Economics and the applicants are having a degree in Economics with Foreign Trade. 10. The literal meaning of the word 'with' is “accompanied by”. The Public Service Commission has no case that B.A (Economics with Foreign Trade) is not a degree in which Economics is not the main subject. Simply because an additional subject is studied along with Economics, whether we can say that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not having the required qualification as per Ext.P1(A6) notification of the Public Service Commission is a question to be decided in this case. According to us, simply because Foreign Trade is also studied by the 1st and 2nd respondents along with Economics, we cannot say that the applicants are not persons having degree in B.A (Economics). It is important that “with” is used after Economics. This itself shows that the candidate is having degree in Economics accompanied by a qualification in Foreign Trade. Therefore, we are of the view that the 1st and 2nd respondents are candidates having the required qualification as per Ext.P1(A6) notification. 11. Moreover, applicants have produced Annexure A16 before the Tribunal, which is an eligibility certificate certifying that B.A degree in Economics with Foreign Trade (Regular) recognized by the University of Kerala is equivalent to B.A degree in Economics. As per Annexure A17 order issued in exercise of the powers conferred as per Section 10(13) of the University of Kerala, 1974, the Kerala University found, B.A degree in Economics with Foreign Trade (Regular) awarded by the University of Calicut, to be recognized as equivalent to B.A degree in Economics of the University of Kerala. In Annexure A19 dated 30.4.2019, the Government ordered that B.A (Economics with Foreign Trade) offered by the University of Calicut is equivalent to B.A (Economics) in University of Kerala for higher studies. The 1st and 2nd respondents also produced Annexure A20 order before the Tribunal, which is an order passed by the University of Calicut. The same says that the academic council after elaborate discussion finally resolved that B.A (Development Economics or Foreign Trade) as the case may be will be eligible for admissions for M.A(Economics). The 1st and 2nd respondents also produced Annexure A20 order before the Tribunal, which is an order passed by the University of Calicut. The same says that the academic council after elaborate discussion finally resolved that B.A (Development Economics or Foreign Trade) as the case may be will be eligible for admissions for M.A(Economics). These orders are issued by the authorities concerned after due consultation with their academic bodies and therefore it will undoubtedly show that B.A (Economics with Foreign Trade) of the University of Calicut is as good as B.A (Economics) which is a degree in the subject concerned as notified in Annexure A6. We have referred to these only to understand as to how the academic bodies understood this qualification. We are not for a moment attempting to garner support from the equalisation as evident from these documents, to be the foundation of our findings. Even dehors these documents, the plain language of the Clause extracted herein above and the inclusion of Economics as one of the eligible subjects would suffice to find the candidature of the applicants to be eminently acceptable. In such circumstances we are in full agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. 12. The learned Standing Counsel produced an unreported judgment dated 15.1.2013 in O.P(KAT)No.177/2013 to support his contentions. On a perusal of the judgment it is clear that the facts in that case is entirely different to the present case in hand. In that case, in the notification published by the Public Service Commission, the qualification mentioned was that, a Post Graduate Degree with Chemistry with not less than 50% marks. But the petitioner in that case was having a Post Graduate degree in Polymer Chemistry. These are two separate Post Graduation degrees and hence this Hon'ble Court dismissed the Original Petition taking the view that, the petitioner in that case is not having the required qualification as per the notification. The Post Graduate courses offered includes “Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Polymer Chemistry, Applied Chemistry etc.” which are separate and distinct courses. Therefore, the decision relied by the counsel for the petitioner has no application in the present case. 13. Similarly, Lalitha Bhais's case was also relied on by the learned Standing Counsel. The Post Graduate courses offered includes “Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Polymer Chemistry, Applied Chemistry etc.” which are separate and distinct courses. Therefore, the decision relied by the counsel for the petitioner has no application in the present case. 13. Similarly, Lalitha Bhais's case was also relied on by the learned Standing Counsel. That was a case in which Public Service Commission specifying a particular qualification to a post and later Government notifying another qualification as an equivalent qualification subsequent to the notification of the Public Service Commission. In such circumstances, this Court held that, alternate qualification can apply only to future notifications. The said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, since we found that there is absolutely no requirement for equalisation in this case. Here the degree is in Economics as the main subject, with a specialisation in Foreign Trade. In the light of the above discussion, we feel that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in allowing the Original Application and there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence O.P(KAT) is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.