JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The aforecaptioned Original Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn Ext.P-5 final order dated 17.11.2021 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in the instant Original Application, O.A. No. 1968/2020. The sole petitioner in the instant O.P. is the 1st respondent (Kerala Public Service Commission). The 1st respondent in this O.P. is the sole applicant in the O.A. and respondents 2 and 3 in the O.P. have been arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in the O.A. 2. Heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission appearing for the petitioner in the OP/R1 in the O.A. Sri. K.K. Sethukumar, learned counsel appearing for R1 in the OP/applicant in the O.A. Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R2 herein and Sri. P. Sreekumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University of Health Sciences appearing for R3 herein. 3. The 1st respondent herein will be referred as the original applicant/applicant, for convenience. The Kerala Public Service Commission will be referred as PSC, for convenience. The applicant has filed the instant Ext.P-1 original application, O.A. No. 1968/2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, with the following prayers: “(a) To set aside Annexure A-11 rejection of the application of the applicant for the post of Audiology and Speech Pathologist in the Department of Medical Education Service. (b) Issue an order or direction directing the 1st respondent to call and allow the applicant to the interview proposed to be held on 17.12.2020. (c) To declare that the Master of Science (Speech and Hearing) of the University of Mysore, is equivalent to the Master of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology course conducted by the Kerala University of Health Sciences. (d) To declare that the applicant is qualified for the post of Audiology and Speech Pathologist in the Department of Medical Education Service, who is having Master's Degree, Master of Science (Speech and Hearing) of the University of Mysore, which is equivalent to the Master's Degree, Master of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology course conducted by the Kerala University of Health Sciences, as prescribed in Annexure-A4 notification in the Department of Medical education Service. (e) To grant such other reliefs which the applicant may seek from time to time and this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to be granted to the circumstances.” 4. The order under challenge in the above O.A. was the impugned Annexure-A11 rejection order and the consequential decision taken by the PSC to reject the candidature of the applicant for the post of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist and the consequential decision to exclude him from the ranked list in question. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-5 final verdict in the instant O.A. on 17.11.2021, wherein it has been held that the Kerala University of Health Sciences has taken a decision, as per Annexure-A5, to treat the applicant's Annexure-A1 M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded by the University of Mysore, as equivalent to the Masters Degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology awarded by the Kerala University of Health Sciences and that, consequently, the State Government has also issued Annexure-A13 G.O. (Rt.) No. 2050/2021/H&FWD dated 22.09.2021, ordering that the abovesaid M.Sc. degree of the applicant awarded by the Mysore University, be treated as equivalent to the abovesaid Masters Degree awarded by the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS). The Tribunal further held that the abovesaid decision of the KUHS, as per Annexure-A5 dated 12.02.2020 rendered by the KUHS and Annexure-A13 G.O. dated 22.09.2021 issued by the State Government, is declaratory and clarificatory and would relate back to the time of acquisition of Annexure-A1 M.Sc. degree secured by the applicant in June, 2013 and therefore, the applicant will have to be treated as fully qualified. The Tribunal has also noted that the applicant had earlier secured Annexure-A2 B.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, awarded by the University of Kerala in May, 2008 and that he has also secured registration with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) under Section 19 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, as a qualified professional in the field of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, as early as on 30.07.2009, as referred to in Annexure-A3. So, he has all the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist, in terms of Annexure A-4 selection notification dated 28.06.2017, issued by the PSC, wherein the last date of submission of application was 02.08.2017, etc. So, he has all the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist, in terms of Annexure A-4 selection notification dated 28.06.2017, issued by the PSC, wherein the last date of submission of application was 02.08.2017, etc. On this basis, the Tribunal has ordered that the PSC shall issue appropriate addendum notification, including the name of the applicant in Annexure A-12 ranked list, within three weeks and that the inclusion of the applicant in the said ranked list, shall not affect the candidates already advised from the ranked list, etc. It is this decision of the Tribunal at Ext.P-5 that is under challenge in the instant original petition filed at the instance of the Kerala Public Service Commission. 5. We have heard both sides in extenso and considered the rival pleas and the materials on record. 6. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent-Kerala University of Health Sciences has filed a statement dated 04.03.2022 in this O.P. wherein it has been inter-alia submitted that the requisite professional qualification, put in the second schedule of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, is a recognized qualification for a rehabilitation professional in the field of Speech Pathology and Audiology and that the 3rd respondent-KUHS has issued Annexure A-5 Equivalence Certificate dated 12.02.2020 to the applicant, on his request, and that even otherwise, the same stands recognized in the light of the provisions contained in the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 and that the qualification has been duly recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India, as evident from the registration granted to the applicant. Further that, Section 25 (xv) of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act empowers the academic council of the university to decide on what examinations of other universities be treated as equivalent to the degrees awarded by the 3rd respondent and that the equivalence certificate, as above has been thus duly issued to the applicant, etc. 7. Reference to the factual details in this case would be pertinent. The applicant has secured Annexure A-2 B.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Kerala in May, 2008. Later, he has secured Annexure A-1(1) M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded by the University of Mysore in June, 2013. Annexure A-1(2) is the copy of the mark list issued for the said M.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Kerala in May, 2008. Later, he has secured Annexure A-1(1) M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded by the University of Mysore in June, 2013. Annexure A-1(2) is the copy of the mark list issued for the said M.Sc. course by the University of Mysore. Thereafter, the applicant has secured registration, in terms of Section 19 and Section 23 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, as a rehabilitation professional (Audiologist and Speech Pathologist) on 30.07.2009, as referred to in Annexure A-3. The Post-Graduate qualification secured by the applicant, in terms of Annexure A-1, has also been duly included in the said registration certificate issued under Section 19 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, as can be seen from Annexure A-3. Annexure A-3 would also make it clear that the abovesaid registration certificate has been issued to the applicant, as specified in the Central Rehabilitation Register (CRR) as a rehabilitation professional (Audiologist and Speech Pathologist). 8. Further, it appears that the applicant had responded to Annexure A-4 selection notification dated 28.06.2017, issued by the PSC, for inviting applications for selection to the post of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist under the medical education service of the Government of Kerala, wherein the method of appointment is direct recruitment. The qualifications prescribed for the abovesaid post of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist in terms of Annexure A-4, are contained in Clause No. 7 thereof, which read as follows: “7. Qualifications: (1) Master's Degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology issued by a University or Institution recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India. In the absence of (1) above Degree in Audiology and speech language pathology issued by a University or Institution recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. (2) Registration with Rehabilitation Council of India. Note: KS&SSR Part II Rule 10(a)(ii) is applicable.” 9. The last date of submission of application, in pursuance of Annexure A-4, was 02.08.2017. It appears that the applicant had appeared for the written examination as well as for the interview. Further, from the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the applicant could not produce the equivalence certificate, issued by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, within the deadline intimated by the PSC. The applicant had produced copy of the syllabus, curriculum, examination details of Annexure A-1 M.Sc. Further, from the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the applicant could not produce the equivalence certificate, issued by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, within the deadline intimated by the PSC. The applicant had produced copy of the syllabus, curriculum, examination details of Annexure A-1 M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded by the University of Mysore, before the authorities of the 3rd respondent-KUHS, who, after consideration, has issued Annexure A-5 equivalence certificate dated 12.02.2020, ordering that the abovesaid M.Sc. degree awarded by the University of Mysore is recognized as equivalent to the Masters Degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology conducted by the KUHS and that Annexure A-5 certificate has been issued to the applicant herein on his request submitted before the PSC. It is later that the Government has issued Annexure A-13 G.O. (Ms.) No. 2050/2021/H&FWD dated 22.09.2021, ordering that, in the light of Annexure A-5 equivalence certificate issued by the KUHS, the abovesaid qualification of M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded to the applicant by the University of Mysore, is to be treated as equivalent to the M.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology issued by the KUHS. Annexure A-12 ranked list dated 28.06.2021 was finalized by the PSC, for the abovesaid post of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist, in which the name of the applicant has been excluded. There is no dispute that Annexure A-5 equivalence certificate dated 12.02.2020, issued by the KUHS, was secured by the applicant, after the timeline stipulated by the PSC. However, Annexure A-5 dated 12.02.2020 has been issued by the KUHS before the finalization of Annexure A-12 ranked list on 28.06.2021. 10. The applicant was included in the main list of the short list containing 11 candidates, published on 21.11.2019 and should have completed the certificate verification process on 04.12.2019. Further, the stand of the PSC is that the applicant could not produce any documents to show that the qualification possessed by him is one that has been treated as equivalent by the Government, etc. and his candidature was rejected. Further, the stand of the PSC is that the applicant could not produce any documents to show that the qualification possessed by him is one that has been treated as equivalent by the Government, etc. and his candidature was rejected. Pursuant to the interim order dated 14.12.2020, issued by the Tribunal in the instant O.A. the applicant was allowed to participate in the interview for the abovesaid post provisionally and subject to further orders in the O.A. So, the applicant was thus provisionally permitted to participate in the interview for the above post conducted by the PSC on 17.12.2020 in compliance with the said interim order dated 14.12.2020. 11. The main issue is as to whether the applicant possesses all the requisite prescribed qualification for the abovesaid post, in terms of the prescriptions in Annexure A-4 selection notification dated 28.06.2017. The applicant has acquired Annexure A-2 B.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology awarded by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Kerala in May, 2008. The applicant has been awarded Annexure A-1 M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing awarded by the University of Mysore in June, 2013. The applicant has secured registration as a rehabilitation professional in terms of Section 19 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, as can be seen from the entries in Annexure A-3. So, all these qualifications have been secured by the applicant, well before the last date of submission of applications in pursuance of Annexure A-4, viz. 02.08.2017. The only issue is as to whether the applicant has secured Masters Degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology issued by a University or institution recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. The specific prescription in clause-7 of Annexure A-4 is not that the Masters degree concerned should be one which is issued by a University in Kerala or one which has been issued by any other university, which has been recognized by a University in Kerala. The main issue is as to whether the requisite degree in question is one which has been recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. The 3rd respondent-KUHS is the university in the State of Kerala, which is dealing with medical and health sciences subjects. The M.Sc. degree, now being offered by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, is M.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, as can be seen from Annexure A-5 dated 12.02.2020. 12. The 3rd respondent-KUHS is the university in the State of Kerala, which is dealing with medical and health sciences subjects. The M.Sc. degree, now being offered by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, is M.Sc. degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, as can be seen from Annexure A-5 dated 12.02.2020. 12. The matters related to the conduct of recognized professional courses in the field of rehabilitation professionals, including that of Audiologist, Speech Pathologist, etc. are fully regulated by the provisions contained in the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (Central Act No. 34 of 1992), engrafted by the Parliament. Certain amendments have been made to the abovesaid Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, as per the Amendment Act, 2000. 13. Section 2(b) of the said Act defines “Council” to mean the Rehabilitation Council of India constituted under Section 3 thereof. Section 2 (k) thereof defines “recognised rehabilitation qualification” to mean any of the qualification included in the Schedule and Section 2(l) defines the “Register” to mean the Central Rehabilitation Register maintained under Section 23(1). Section 2(n) defines “rehabilitation professionals” to mean audiologists and speech therapists and the other categories mentioned therein. Section 11 deals with Recognition of qualifications granted by University, etc. in India for rehabilitation professionals. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in the Schedule to be enrolled, etc. are dealt with in Section 13. In particular, Section 13(2) mandates that no person, other than the rehabilitation professional, who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification is enrolled on the Register: (a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any such office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any other institution maintained by a local or other authority. (b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India, etc. 14. Section 18 deals with the minimum standards of education, which empowers the RCI to prescribe minimum standards of education required for granting recognised rehabilitation qualification by the Universities or institutions in India. Section 19 deals with registration in the abovesaid Central Rehabilitation Register, envisaged in Section 2(l) read with Section 23(1) thereof. Privileges conferred on persons, who are registered on the above register are enumerated in Section 20. 15. We have perused through the original statutory schedule of the RCI Act, 1992, as given in AIR Law Manual, 6th Edition, published in September, 2016, Volume No. 41, given from Page No. 133 thereof onwards. Privileges conferred on persons, who are registered on the above register are enumerated in Section 20. 15. We have perused through the original statutory schedule of the RCI Act, 1992, as given in AIR Law Manual, 6th Edition, published in September, 2016, Volume No. 41, given from Page No. 133 thereof onwards. The All India Institute for Speech and Hearing, Manasa Gangothri, Mysore is the leading institution in the abovesaid professional field of Speech and Pathology, which was established by the Central Authorities concerned. It is seen that even now the said All India institute is called as the All Institute for Speech and Hearing and not as the All Institute for Speech Pathology and Audiology. From the abovesaid schedule given in the AIR Law manual, it is seen that the said All India Institute for Speech and Hearing, Mysore, was initially awarding B.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing and later, it has been awarding Bachelors Degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology. So also, at the Post-Graduate level, initially it was offering the M.Sc. (Speech and Hearing course). Further, it is seen from the said entries in the schedule, that now the said institute is also offering M.Sc. in Audiology as well as M.Sc. in Speech Language Pathology. 16. From the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the applicant has secured M.Sc. degree from Mysore University, as per Annexure A-1 dated June, 2013, which is M.Sc. in Speech andHearing. So it appears that the University of Mysore was naming its M.Sc. course in the abovesaid professional field as M.Sc. in Speech and Hearing, at the earlier point of time, when the applicant had secured the said degree in June, 2013, following the pattern of the M.Sc. course, which was earlier offered at the premier All India Institution, viz. the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasa Gangothri, Mysore, which was also calling the said course as M.Sc. in Speech and Hearing. The 3rd respondent-KUHS, which is a recognized institution, has certified, as per Annexure A-5 dated 11.02.2020, that the M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing conducted by the University of Mysore is recognized as equivalent to the Masters degree of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology conducted by the KUHS. From the subsequent entries in the schedule, it appears that the new nomenclature for the course is Speech Language Pathology and Audiology. degree in Speech and Hearing conducted by the University of Mysore is recognized as equivalent to the Masters degree of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology conducted by the KUHS. From the subsequent entries in the schedule, it appears that the new nomenclature for the course is Speech Language Pathology and Audiology. The certification given by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, as per Annexure A-5 dated 12.02.2020, has also been fully accepted by the 1st respondent-State Government, as per Annexure A-13 dated 22.09.2021. It is seen from Annexure A-3 issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India, in terms of Section 19 of the RCI Act, that the abovesaid M.Sc. (Speech and Hearing) 2013 degree awarded to the applicant by the University of Mysore, has also been included as an additional qualification in the Central Rehabilitation Register, as envisaged in Section 2(k), Section 19 and Section 23. Further, Annexure A-3 would also inter-alia certify that the said certificate has been issued to the candidate as specified in the Central Rehabilitation Register (CRR), as rehabilitation professional in the field of Audiologist and Speech Pathologist. The abovesaid materials would clearly show that, not only the B.Sc. degree awarded to the applicant but also the M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded to him in 2013 by the University of Mysore, has also been additionally added in Annexure A-3 Central Rehabilitation Register, as an additional recognized qualification. These aspects would clearly show that the certification given by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, as per Annexure A-5 dated 12.02.2020 and as accepted by the 2nd respondent-State Government, as per Annexure A-3 dated 22.09.2021, is only clarificatory and declaratory and the same would relate back to the acquisition of the qualification, as per Annexure A-1 dated June, 2013. 17. It has to be borne in mind that the crucial qualification prescribed in clause-7 of Annexure A-4 selection notification is not that the Masters degree should be one which is awarded by a university in Kerala or one which is issued by any other university, which has been recognized or a qualification which is awarded by a university outside the State of Kerala, or recognized as equivalent by one of the universities in the State of Kerala, etc. On the other hand, the specific qualification prescribed is Masters degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, issued by a university or institution recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. 18. On the other hand, the specific qualification prescribed is Masters degree in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, issued by a university or institution recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. 18. It will be pertinent to refer to the contents of Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the said statement dated 04.03.2022, filed by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, which read as follows: “3. It is respectfully submitted that the Rehabilitation Council of India was established under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act [herein after referred as Act]. The council thus established has a regulatory power over the courses conducted for the rehabilitation professionals. Section 11 of the Act says: “11. Recognition of qualifications granted by University, etc. in India for re-habilitation professionals: (1) The qualifications granted by any University or other institution in India which are included in the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications for rehabilitation professionals. (2) Any University or other institution which grants qualification for the rehabilitation professionals not included in the Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have any such qualification recognised and the Central Government, after consulting the Council may, by notification, amend the Schedule so as to include such qualification therein and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the Schedule against such qualification only when granted after a specified date.” Further section 13 says about the rights of the persons possessing a recognized qualification as contemplated under section 11, which is as follows: “13. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in the Schedule to be enrolled: (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any qualification included in the Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on the Register. (2) No person, other than rehabilitation professional who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the Register: (a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any such office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority. (b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India. (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a rehabilitation professional. (d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any court as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. (b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India. (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a rehabilitation professional. (d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any court as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to the handicapped: Provided that if a person possesses the recognised rehabilitation professional qualifications on the date of commencement of this Act, he shall be deemed to be an enrolled rehabilitation professional for a period of six months from such commencement, and if he has made an application for enrolment on the Register within said period of six months, till such application is disposed of: (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), any person being a doctor or a paramedic in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation, orthopaedics, ear, nose or throat (ENT), ophthalmology or psychiatry, employed or working in any hospital or establishment owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or any other body funded by the Central or a State Government and notified by the Central Government, may discharge the functions referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of that sub-section (inserted by Act 38 of 2000 w.e.t. 4.9.2000). (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 4. In the light of the above provision the qualification included in the second schedule of the Act is a recognized qualification for a rehabilitation profession in the country. The university has issued the eligibility certificate to the applicant on his request and even otherwise the same stands recognized in the light of the provisions mentioned above since the qualification is recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India as is evident from the registration granted to the applicant. Section 25(xv) of Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, empowers the Academic Council to decide on what examinations of other universities be treated as equivalent to the degrees issued by this respondent. The equivalency certificate to the applicant was thus issued by this respondent.” 19. Section 25(xv) of Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, empowers the Academic Council to decide on what examinations of other universities be treated as equivalent to the degrees issued by this respondent. The equivalency certificate to the applicant was thus issued by this respondent.” 19. The specific stand taken by the 3rd respondent-KUHS, is not that the Post-Graduate degree in the discipline concerned should be conferred or recognized by a University in Kerala, but that the M.Sc. degree in question, should be recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. Hence, it can be seen that even de hors the stand of the 3rd respondent-KUHS, as per Annexure-A5 dated 12.02.2020, the petitioner has possessed the M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing in 2013, which is a rehabilitation professional qualification recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India, as is evident from the abovesaid registration granted to the applicant, going by the entries in Annexure A-3, which has been discussed hereinabove. The issue as to whether the decisions as in Annexure A-5 dated 11.02.2020, issued by the 3rd respondent-KUHS and Annexure A-13 G.O dated 22.09.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government, would be only clarificatory and declaratory and the same would relate back or on the other hand, the same is prospective only from the date of its issuance, etc., is no longer res integra. 20. It will be pertinent to refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case in Praveen Kumar C.P. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 612, Para Nos. 27 and 28 thereof, read as follows: “27. Whether a GO would have prospective effect or relate back to an earlier date is a question which would have to be decided on the basis of text and tenor of the respective orders. The GOs which declared appellants' degrees to be equivalent to those required as per the applicable notifications were not general orders but these two orders were person specific, relating to the two appellants. Once the GOs specifically declared that their B.Ed. degrees were equivalent to the designated subject which formed part of the employment notification, the GOs in substance have to be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and these cannot be construed to have had elevated the status or position of the degree they already had after the declaration was made in the GOs. degrees were equivalent to the designated subject which formed part of the employment notification, the GOs in substance have to be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and these cannot be construed to have had elevated the status or position of the degree they already had after the declaration was made in the GOs. The subject GOs only recognised an existing state of affairs so far as the nature of the degrees were concerned and did not create fresh value for the degrees which the appellants possessed. Though these equivalent orders were not in existence on the dates of issue of employment notifications, the GOs in substance recognize such status from the dates of obtaining such degrees. The GOs do not reveal any intervening circumstances which could be construed to imply that the respective degrees acquired the equivalent status because of such circumstances occurring subsequent to grant of their B.Ed. degrees. The aforesaid Notes to Clause 7 of the employment notifications postulated disclosure of the number and date of the orders on equivalence. But the GOs to which we have referred treat the equivalency to be operating on the dates of obtaining such degrees. Thus, the defect, if any, on disclosure requirement, shall stand cured on issue of the University orders followed by the GOs. The GOs also specify the context in which these were issued and refer to the appellants being included in the list of KPSC. This being the case, we do not think treating the appellants' degrees as equivalent to those required under the applicable notifications by the GOs issued in the year 2019 would result in change in the rules of the game midway. At best, it can be termed as interpreting the rules when the game was on, figuratively speaking. Such a course would, in our opinion, be permissible. For this reason, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the different authorities cited on the principle of “change in the rule of the game midway”. We have opined that the appellants' degrees in B.Ed. were equivalent to those required by the employment notifications and the equivalency orders were merely clarificatory in nature. For this reason, we do not think there was any fundamental breach of Notes (v) and (vi) of Clause 7 of the respective employment notifications in the cases of the appellants. 28. We have opined that the appellants' degrees in B.Ed. were equivalent to those required by the employment notifications and the equivalency orders were merely clarificatory in nature. For this reason, we do not think there was any fundamental breach of Notes (v) and (vi) of Clause 7 of the respective employment notifications in the cases of the appellants. 28. Once we hold so, we do not think relief can be denied to these two appellants on the ground that other similarly situated persons may not have had applied for the same posts and were being put to disadvantage. In the case of Aarya K. Babu (supra), that course was adopted by a coordinate Bench as it was a new subject which was added to a subsisting range of subjects in the qualification criteria. The principle of service jurisprudence that a candidate must possess the requisite qualification for a post on the date of issue of employment notification cannot be applied in the appellants' cases, as in our view, they possessed equivalent qualifications when they applied for the posts. The GOs only confirmed the equivalency of their B.Ed. degrees. In our opinion, they shall be deemed to have had the equivalent qualification on the relevant date. As we have held that the respective GOs only clarified or confirmed an existing status of certain educational qualifications, in absence of specific instance of similarly situated but unspecified number of persons having not applied for the posts would be unfair to the ones who apply for the same and undergo three levels of litigations to establish that they had equivalent degrees.” 21. Whether the abovesaid decisions at Annexure A-5 amd A-13, would have only prospective effect from the date of its issuance or the same would relate back, is a matter which will have to be decided on the basis of the text and tenor of the respective orders. If it is held that the said decisions are only clarificatory and declaratory in nature, then it only recognizes an existing state of affairs, as far as the nature of the degrees are concerned and they do not by itself create any fresh value for the qualifications already possessed by the candidate. True that, those orders may not have been in existence, as on the last date of submission of applications in terms of Annexure A-4, viz. 02.08.2017. True that, those orders may not have been in existence, as on the last date of submission of applications in terms of Annexure A-4, viz. 02.08.2017. But once it is held that those decisions are only clarificatory and declaratory, then the same would relate back to the date of acquisition of the qualification. In the facts of the case dealt with by the Apex Court in Praveen Kumar's case supra, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have emphasized as to whether those proceedings issued by the Government, where it is held that the abovesaid decisions are only clarificatory and would relate back, then the same only certifies the pre-existing state of affairs and the same would relate back to the time of acquisition of qualification in question and hence, the candidates should be treated as qualified as on the last date of submission of application and in such a case, there is no question of change of rules of the game of the selection process midway. In the facts of that case, their Lordships of the Apex Court have given some emphasis on the aspect that the said certificates of equivalence were given in the names of the candidates concerned, etc. Going by the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the aforecited decision in Praveen Kumar's case supra and also taking into account the abovesaid aspects, more particularly, the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act as well as the entries in the Schedule thereto as well as the entries in Annexure A-3 statutory register, we are of the view that, what is involved in the instant case was following the old pattern of designating M.Sc. course as one in Speech and Hearing in comparison to the new pattern of designating the course as M.Sc. in Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, etc. What is most important is as to whether the person concerned has a recognized qualification to be a rehabilitation professional as Audiologist and Speech Pathologist, in terms of the RCI Act. Even the premium institution in the country, viz. the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, was earlier awarding M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing and now, it is awarding M.Sc. degree in Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, etc. and the schedule shows that both qualifications are recognized, etc. So it is clear that Annexure A-1 M.Sc. Even the premium institution in the country, viz. the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, was earlier awarding M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing and now, it is awarding M.Sc. degree in Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, etc. and the schedule shows that both qualifications are recognized, etc. So it is clear that Annexure A-1 M.Sc. degree was offered by the University of Mysore, following the designation for the old pattern of the process, followed even by the premium institute in the country. So, the designation by itself may not be very material and designation of the nomenclature of the course by itself may not be fully material in the facts of the case, so long as the person concerned has secured registration of the said qualification in the Central Rehabilitation Register, in terms of Section 2(k), Section 19 and Section 23 of the RCI Act. Annexure A-3 entries would clearly show that the M.Sc. degree in Speech and Hearing, awarded to the respondent by the University of Mysore in 2013, has been added in the said statutory register given in the name of the applicant, as an additional qualification and he has also been clearly recognized in Annexure A-3 as a rehabilitation professional as Audiologist and Speech Pathologist. So also, taking note of the specific stand of the 3rd respondent-KUHS, even de hors Annexure A-5 certificate, the abovesaid Annexure A-1 M.Sc. degree qualification of the applicant in Speech and Hearing, is a qualification recognized by the RCI, as evident from the registration granted to the applicant, in terms of Annexure A-3. So, the inevitable conclusion is that the aspects stated and certified in Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-13, are only declaratory and clarificatory of the pre-existing state of affairs and the same would relate back to the acquisition of the qualification of the applicant as per Annexure A-1 awarded in June 2013, which is well before the last date of application in the instant case. But it has to be borne in mind that the equivalence certificate, would have been very relevant if the qualification prescribed was not Degree or Post-Graduate Degree of the subject concerned conferred or recognized by a university in Kerala, but on the other hand, the qualification prescribed is M.Sc. degree in the discipline concerned, awarded by a university or institution recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. degree in the discipline concerned, awarded by a university or institution recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. In other words, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, that Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-13 would relate back to the acquisition of the qualification of the applicant, is legally correct. 22. In the facts of the case in Praveen Kumar's case supra, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Para No. 27 of the said decision have also emphasized that the Government orders of equivalence considered in that case, were not general orders, but those orders were person specific, relating to the two appellants therein, etc., as one of the reasons for reaching the conclusion that the two Government orders therein relating to equivalence, does not only have prospective effect, but are also declaratory and clarificatory in nature, and hence, has the effect of relating back to the time of acquisition of the qualifications of the said candidates, etc. In this case, the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that in both Annexure A-5 certificate dated 12.02.2020, issued by the 3rd respondent- KUHS as well as Annexure A-13 Government Order dated 22.09.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government, the name of the applicant herein has been referred to herein, etc. However, we are of the opinion that the mentioning of the name of the applicant herein in Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-13 by itself would not be, in any manner, predominantly determinative of the question as to whether those orders are having clarificatory, which are the effect of relating back or only prospective, etc. This is because of the specific nature of the qualifications prescribed in Annexure A-1, which is that the qualification should be issued by an institution, inasmuch as recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India and also in view of the provisions in the abovesaid Act and the schedule therein as well as the entries in Annexure A-3 Central Register mentioned hereinabove. 23. However, the Tribunal has adequately protected the interest of the PSC and other candidates, by specifically ordering that the inclusion of the applicant in the ranked list as per Annexure A-12 dated 18.06.2021, shall not affect advices of candidates already made by the petitioner. 23. However, the Tribunal has adequately protected the interest of the PSC and other candidates, by specifically ordering that the inclusion of the applicant in the ranked list as per Annexure A-12 dated 18.06.2021, shall not affect advices of candidates already made by the petitioner. In other words, advices of candidates included in Annexure A-12 ranked list, made by the PSC upto the date of rendering of the impugned Ext.P-5 final order of the Tribunal on 17.11.2021, shall not be disturbed. So the issue relating to consideration of the advice of the applicant, consequent to his inclusion in the ranked list, will not in any manner, prejudicially affect candidates already advised by the PSC as on 17.12.2021. So, necessary safeguards have also been made by the Tribunal. 24. In the light of the abovesaid aspects, we do not find any grounds to reach a conclusion different from the one rendered by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the delay in the matter, it is ordered that the petitioner will comply with the directions of the Tribunal at Ext.P-5, without any further delay, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 25. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition, will stand dismissed.