JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias C.P., J. The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) is aggrieved by the order in OA Nos.206/2021, 240 of 2021, 147 of 2021 and 202 of 2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby, the original applications preferred by the party respondents were allowed holding them to be eligible to apply for the post of Optometrist Grade II in the Health Services Department pursuant to the notification dated 14.11.2018 as category No.217/2018. 2. The short facts leading to the original petitions are as follows:- The Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) invited applications from the qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Optometrist Grade II in the Health Services Department prescribing the following qualifications: “Qualifications (1) Pass in Pre-degree with Physics, Chemistry and Biology OR Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as optional subjects or equivalent qualification (2) Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant Course (2 years) conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala or equivalent qualification.” 3. The party respondents/applicants before the Tribunal were graduates in BSc Optometry Course from the Universities recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The PSC issued a communication dated 22.12.2020 to the applicants requiring them to upload the TC/Course Certificate from the institutions in which they underwent the BSc Optometry course within five days and also to get the same verified from the local office of the PSC. It further stipulated that in case the BSc Optometry Course was undertaken under the Distance Education Scheme, then the Government Order enabling the acceptability/equivalence of the course was also to be produced. The PSC thereafter finding that the documents requested for by them were not produced, rejected the applications on three grounds namely that the documents sought for by them were not produced, the internship of the BSc Optometry Course was not completed before the last date of the application and thirdly the BSc Optometry Course undergone under the Open/Distance Education Course was not acceptable and consequently rejected the applications of those included in the ranked list for selection. The orders of rejection were challenged before the Tribunal by the applicants contending that they had the requisite qualification of BSc Optometry which is a higher/superior qualification to that of Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant Course. They had applied for the post and took the written test and were included in the probability list. The orders of rejection were challenged before the Tribunal by the applicants contending that they had the requisite qualification of BSc Optometry which is a higher/superior qualification to that of Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant Course. They had applied for the post and took the written test and were included in the probability list. It is after their inclusion in the probability list that they were asked to upload the certificates, which they did through their profile for one time verification of the documents as mentioned above. During the pendency of the original applications, the PSC had brought into force the ranked list for the post of Optometrist Grade II with effect from 29.4.2021. 4. The petitioner - PSC contended before the Tribunal that the applicants did not upload the certificates sought for by them to prove that the qualification possessed by them and that it was one acquired through a regular course of study, or through the Distance/Correspondence/Open Course. It is further contended by the petitioners that as per Rule 10(1)(ii) of the Part II KS & SSR, it had decided to accept the BSc Optometry decree course obtained through the regular course of study as higher qualification. It is also their contention that TC/ Course certificate produced by the applicants did not make it clear whether the course they undertook was part of a regular study as practical and internship was integral part of the course. For these reasons the rejections the rejection of the applications were sought to be sustained. 5. The applicants had filed a rejoinder to the reply statement reiterating that they were fully qualified and that all of them had undergone regular course of study from the Universities recognised by the UGC. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions, and materials on record considered the short question as to whether the rejection by the PSC was illegal or not held in favour of the applicants. 6. It held that it is not in dispute that the qualification of BSc Optometry of four years duration was a superior qualification as provided under Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II KS & SSR and it was made applicable in the selection. It was further undisputed that the PSC had decided to accept the above qualification acquired through a regular course of study as a superior qualification by treating it as a qualification sufficient for the post. It was further undisputed that the PSC had decided to accept the above qualification acquired through a regular course of study as a superior qualification by treating it as a qualification sufficient for the post. The Tribunal after considering the communications sent by the PSC requiring the applicants to produce the certificates found since all the applicants had acquired qualification through the regular course of study, as evidenced from the course certificate/TC, they were not required to produce any Government Order that proving the equivalency/ acceptability of the degrees obtained by the applicants. The Tribunal further found that the Universities concerned as a matter of fact endorsed the fact that the applicants had acquired the BSc Optometry qualification through a regular course of study. In as much as the applicants possessed the requisite qualification, BSc Optometry through a regular course of study which admittedly is a superior qualification and which was made applicable to the selection process as aforesaid the applicants were found entitled to succeed and the orders impugned in the original applications were set aside and the PSC was directed to issue appropriate addendum notification including the applicants in the rank list, in accordance with their marks and also a further direction, after inclusion in the rank list for further advice and appointment there from in accordance with their ranking and working out the rotation and the turns by the PSC. This order of the tribunal is impugned in these original petitions. 7. We heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel for the PSC, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, Sri. T.G. Sunil, Sri. Sandeep T. George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants, Sri. P. Sreekumar, learned standing counsel for the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), Sri. Mohanakannan K., the learned standing counsel for IGNOU. 8. After hearing the learned counsel in all sides and perusing the pleadings and records the following admitted facts emerge. The fact that the BSc Optometry qualification obtained through a regular course of study is treated as a higher qualification for the selection in question is not disputed by the petitioner. The candidates were requested to produce, TC/Course certificate from the University or from the institute from which the qualification was acquired only to prove that they had undertaken a regular course of study and that was done by the applicants. The candidates were requested to produce, TC/Course certificate from the University or from the institute from which the qualification was acquired only to prove that they had undertaken a regular course of study and that was done by the applicants. Since the applicants had acquired the qualification through a regular course of study there was no further requirement for the applicants to produce any Government Order as it was applicable only to those who underwent the Open/Correspondence Course. The requirement of those who undertook the Distance Education course to produce the documents were not applicable or relevant to the applicants before the Tribunal and as such the reasons in the impugned order cannot stand. The Tribunal in our view was fully justified in concluding that the applicants had undergone a regular course of study and that BSc Optometry Degree was considered as a valid qualification, the rejection was unwarranted. 9. This Court at the time of admission passed a detailed order on 8.4.2022 directing the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS) Thrissur to be impleaded in the writ appeal for the specific purpose of requesting the Universities concerned, Bharathiar and Alagappa to provide such materials regarding the respective BSc courses in Optometry run by the Universities so that the expert academic body of KUHS may examine all these materials including the course contents, syllabus, curriculum of the BSc course in Optometry, run by those Universities and to compare the same with the syllabus, course contents, curriculum of the two year Diploma course in Ophthalmic Assistants run by the Medical Colleges in Kerala and to take a considered decision as to whether or not each of the BSc Degrees granted can be treated as a higher qualification which per-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant within the meaning Rule10(a)(ii) of KS &SSR Part II. The petitioner - PSC was also directed to give their remarks to the Registrar, Kerala State Health Sciences (KUHS). After completing the exercise as directed by this Court, KUHS has filed a memo enclosing the report. The petitioner - PSC was also directed to give their remarks to the Registrar, Kerala State Health Sciences (KUHS). After completing the exercise as directed by this Court, KUHS has filed a memo enclosing the report. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- “Report of the meeting of the expert committee Constituted for comparison of Curriculum, syllabus etc; of BSc Optometry of Bharatiar University, Alagappa University and Indira Gandhi National Open University, with that of the Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants Courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala xxxxx The Committee examined the syllabus of the following courses in detail 1. BSc Optometry of Bharatiar University 2. BSc Optometry of Alagappa University 3. BSc (Hons) in Optometry and Ophthalmic Techniques of IGNOU 4. Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants Courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala On detailed scrutiny, the committee has the opinion that the BSc Optometry courses of Alagappa and Bharatiar University are higher degree as compared to BSc (Hons) in Optometry and Ophthalmic Techniques of IGNOU and Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala The reasons are: 1. The BSc Optometry courses of Alagappa and Bharatiar University have a Specified duration and internship (3 years and 1 year) 2. Vaster syllabus with more subjects, depth in subjects, more papers and newer subjects etc., Eg: BSc Optometry of Bharatiar University have 29 theory and 10 practicals and BSc Optometry of Alagappa university 31 theory and 17 practicals compared to the courses to BSc (Hons) in Optometry and Ophthalmic Techniques of INGOU which have 14 Theory and 14 Practicals and Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala which have 4 theory and 2 practicals. 3. The qualifications of examiners conducting the exam and the qualifications of teachers taking the classes are specified in the Bharatiar and Alagappa University courses but not specified in the IGNOU. 4. The Clinical/Practical training is completely supervising and sequential in BSc Optometry courses of Alagappa and Bharatiar University but it is not so in the IGNOU Course. In case of Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala, it is partial (1 year) 5. 4. The Clinical/Practical training is completely supervising and sequential in BSc Optometry courses of Alagappa and Bharatiar University but it is not so in the IGNOU Course. In case of Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala, it is partial (1 year) 5. The teaching learning methodology for BSc Optometry course of Alagappa and Bharatiar University is classroom/Hospital based/Clinical based/practical lab based whereas in BSc (Hons) Optometry and Ophthalmic Techniques of IGNOU is tele communication/Occational contact/Online/distance mode and non-continuous i.e. the student can appears in final paper in the final year without studying basics. 6. BSc Optometry courses of Alagappa and Bharatiar university have project work and Viva, whereas the BSc (Hons) in Optometry and ophthalmic Techniques of IGNOU/Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants course have only assignments 7. Medical subject like Pediatrics Optometry, Microbiology, Pathology, Ocular Anatomy, Ocular Physiology, systematic diseases etc; addressed poorly in BSc (Hons) in Optometry and Ophthalmic Techniques of IGNOU/Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants course. Conclusion The committee came to the following conclusion 1. The BSc Optometry courses of Alagappa and Bharatiar university is higher compared to Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala. 2. BSc (Hons) in Optometry and Ophthalmic Techniques of IGNOU course is not considered as higher course compared to Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala as its education mode is distance.” On a perusal of the report extracted above it can be seen that the expert body was of definite opinion that the course undertaken in IGNOU cannot be considered as a higher qualification compared to the Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant Courses conducted by the Medical Colleges in Kerala as its education mode is Distance. As stated above the PSC had only taken a decision to permit the BSc Optometry Course conducted in the regular mode as an equivalent qualification and it has been its consistent stand throughout. The learned counsel for the appellants in OP(KAT) 64 of 2022 and OP(KAT) 212 of 2022 tried to justify the degrees obtained from IGNOU by bringing to our notice the public notice dated 7.9.2022 issued by the UGC referring to the Regulations 22 of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, stipulated as follows:- “PUBLIC NOTICE Equivalence of degree obtained through ODL and Online mode with degree obtained through conventional mode. The Regulation 22 of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 stipulates as under. “Equivalence of qualification acquired through Conventional or Open and Distance Learning and Online modes:- Degrees at undergraduate and postgraduate level in conformity with UGC notification on Specification of Degrees, 2014 and post graduate diplomas awarded through Open and Distance Learning mode and/or Online mode by Higher Educational Institutions, recognised by the Commission under these regulations, shall be treated as equivalent to the corresponding awards of the Degrees at undergraduate and postgraduate level and post graduate diplomas offered through conventional mode.” This is for information of the general public, students and other stakeholders.” As stated in the notice, as it can only apply from the date of the public notice or at the most from the date of the Regulations 2020, obviously it cannot apply to the applicants in OP(KAT) 64 of 2022 and OP(KAT) 212 of 2022 as their graduation and the date of applying under the notification were much prior to the public notice and the Regulations. On a perusal of the report extracted above and for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the firm opinion that the order and directions of the Tribunal cannot be faulted at all with respect to the applicants in OA No.140 of 2021 from which OP(KAT) 59 of 2022 arises and in OA No.206 of 2021 from which OP(KAT) 77 of 2022 arises. The challenge against them has to fail. As regards the applicants in OA No.147 of 2021 from which OP(KAT) 64 of 2022 arises and in OA 202 of 2021 from which OP(KAT) 212 of 2022 arises, the applicants had graduated from IGNOU and the rejection of their application by the petitioner has to be sustained for the reasons mentioned above. In the light of the above, the Original Petitions (KAT) 59 of 2022 and 77 of 2022 are dismissed and Original Petitions (KAT) 64 of 2022 and 212 of 2022 are allowed.