JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. In this batch of original petitions, we have to decide on a question that frequently arises before this court as to the legality of the executive orders of the Government declaring a qualification as an equivalent qualification specified for a post after the last date of receipt of application under the notification. 2. These original petitions are filed by candidates who are included in the rank list for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Palakkad District. They applied pursuant to a notification dated 26/12/2014 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). They want to exclude candidates who have applied for the post without qualifications mentioned specifically in the notification. We are not referring to the facts in detail as we are only now deciding a few questions of law in this matter. The precise challenge in this case is regarding the inclusion of the candidates in select list pursuant to the government orders much long after a cut-off date for receipt of last date of application and also after the expiry of rank list declaring equivalency of qualification possessed by such candidates who have been now advised for appointment. 3. The prescribed qualification by KPSC is as follows: 1. S.S.L.C 2. Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate of Bombay or madras OR Health Inspectors' Certificate of Trivandrum Medical College. OR Sanitary Inspectors Certificate of All India institute of Local Self Government Bombay OR The certificate in Sanitary Inspectors' Course awarded by the National Council for Rural Higher Education. OR Sanitary Inspectors' Training Course conducted by the Rural Institute, Thavannur. Note:- KS&SSR Part II Rule 10 (a) (ii) is applicable for selection to this post.(emphasis supplied) 4. Under Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II, KS&SSR, the Government has power to declare a qualification as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in a Special Rule or in an executive order. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 10. 10. Qualifications. [(a) (i) The educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is included or as specified in the executive orders of Government in cases where Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service. 10. Qualifications. [(a) (i) The educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is included or as specified in the executive orders of Government in cases where Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per rule 13 (b) (i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and such of those qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post. 5. In these cases, inclusion of candidates who have obtained trade certificates from the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) under Government of India and State Council for Vocational Training (SCVT) under the State Government are under challenge. The Government issued these orders admittedly after the last date of receipt of application. Last date of receipt of application was on 28/1/2015. The Government on 5/7/2018 issued an executive order holding that the Health Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate issued by the State Council for vocational training is equivalent to the qualification required for the post of Junior Health Inspector in Municipal Common Service. This decision was taken pursuant to the direction issued by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal by its order in O.A.No.2654/2016 dated 16/8/2022. Rank list pursuant to the notification was published on 11/2/2020 and it already expired. 6. Thereafter, on 17/2/2023, the Government issued yet another executive order declaring that NCVT Trade Certificate is equivalent to the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II. We note that the Government as early as on 19/5/2007 declared that NCVT qualifications are equivalent to SCVT qualifications without reference to any posts. In that sense, the moment an SCVT certificate is declared as equivalent, it means that NCVT qualification is equivalent. 7. Now we will come back to the legal question. In service law, the last date for receiving application in the notification is very significant as it sets fair room for the candidates to compete themselves. In that sense, the moment an SCVT certificate is declared as equivalent, it means that NCVT qualification is equivalent. 7. Now we will come back to the legal question. In service law, the last date for receiving application in the notification is very significant as it sets fair room for the candidates to compete themselves. There may be a situation while special Rules were framed or executive orders issued prescribing qualifications for a post, the Government cannot envisage all equivalent qualifications. In order to overcome this, a provision was made in Rule 10(a)(ii) Part II KS&SSR as above. This provision gives authority to the Government to issue executive orders to declare certain qualifications equivalent to the qualification specified for that post. 8. A Division Bench in W.A.No.1236/2006 considered the matter of inclusion of a candidate with qualification M.A.(Sociology) in the rank list for the post of Welfare Officer Grade-II (Jails) Prison Department. The qualification for the post was Degree/Diploma in Social Services/Social Work from a recognised University/Institution. KPSC included candidates who had Sociology as well. In para 16 of the judgment it was held as follows: Exhibit P1 notification does not reveal such a decision or it does not invite applications from the qualifications. persons possessing equivalent Therefore, the decision to treat M.A. Sociology also as an equivalent qualification to consider the candidates with that qualification was a decision taken in hide by the PSC and without making it in public, SO that several others possessing similar qualification could apply. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified to hold that such decision of the PSC, which was not mentioned in its notification and taken after the invitation of the applications, will offend the right of equality of opportunity to similar candidates. The decision of the learned single Judge in that regard cannot be said to be faulty, to invite interference in an appeal. 9. The Apex Court in Praveen Kumar C.P v. Kerala Public Service Commission And Others (2021) 17 SCC 383 considered an issue treating a degree equivalent to the prescribed qualification notification and in para.26 held as follows: 26. Whether a G.O. 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 G.Os. Whether a G.O. 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 G.Os. which declared the 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 G.Os. specifically declared that their B.Ed degrees were equivalent to the designated subject which formed part of the employment notification, the G.Os. 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 G.Os. The subject G.Os. 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 G.Os. in substance recognise such status from the dates of obtaining such degrees. The f G.Os. 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 BEd 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 G.Os. to which we have referred treat the equivalency to be operating on the dates of 9 obtaining such degrees. Thus, the defect, if any, on disclosure requirement, shall stand cured on issue of the University orders followed by the G.Os. The G.Os. 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 G.Os. 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. 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 BEd 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. 10. Treating a qualification as equivalent is the wisdom of the employer, the appointing authority. The wisdom of the appointing authority to treat a qualification as equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post in the notification cannot be questioned by the candidates who were aspirants for the post, except in cases where there is total lack of application of mind in recognizing such equivalency. According to us the question in this case purely falls within the four corners of the notification. The Note referred to in the notification is decisive in the matter. It is reproduced herewith for reference. Note:- KS&SSR Part II Rule 10 (a) (ii) is applicable for selection to this post. (emphasis supplied) 11. In the light of the note as above, any candidate who is possessing similar qualifications could apply for the post in anticipation of obtaining equivalency from the Government. It is for the Government to decide thereafter to consider whether the qualification is equivalent or not. That means, an open invitation is given to all candidates to apply for the post who feels that their qualification is equivalent. That itself is an equal opportunity given to all similarly situated candidates. The applicants who did not possess qualification prescribed in the notification did not make the application by chance, but consciously believed that their qualification is equivalent to the qualification notified by KPSC. In the absence of note stipulating Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II, KS&SSR, the candidates whose qualification has been declared as equivalent could not have been included in the rank list as it would amount to denial of opportunity to all others. In the absence of note stipulating Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II, KS&SSR, the candidates whose qualification has been declared as equivalent could not have been included in the rank list as it would amount to denial of opportunity to all others. That is exactly the law laid down in para.16 of the judgment in W.A.No.1236/2006. In the notification, if such a stipulation was not made, PSC could not have accepted the application from a fortuitous applicant and equivalency given by the government to such candidates after the last date of receipt of application prescribed in the notification cannot find a place in the rank list. Therefore, the law is clear. If KPSC stipulates that Part II Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR would apply in such notification, it means that all candidates who do not possess the prescribed qualification can be considered for inclusion in the list on obtaining declaration as to the equivalency by the Government subsequently and they cannot be excluded stating that the equivalency was granted long after the last date prescribed for receiving application or after the publication of the rank list. In such circumstances, we are of the view that in the light of the clear stipulation in the notification, based on subsequent declaration of equivalency by the Government, KPSC rightly included the candidates who possessed NCTV or SCVT in the rank list and select list. That cannot be said to be illegal. Accordingly, all the original petitions are dismissed.