Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANOJKUMAR M.S. versus KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MANOJKUMAR M.S. v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WA No. 2158 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2550 (5 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2158 of 2006()

1. MANOJKUMAR M.S.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :05/12/2006

O R D E R

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.


=============================
W.A.NO.2158 OF 2006
=============================

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006



JUDGMENT

Abdul Gafoor,J.

The appellant/writ petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application in response to Ext.P7 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil) by direct recruitment confining to the candidates in service who were possessing Engineering Degree in Civil. Ext.P7 revealed that the vacancies were notified for direct recruitment. The contention is that Ext.P6 Special Rules came into force on 9-8-2001 and prior to that date the candidates with degree in Mechanical Engineering also were entitled to appointment as Assistant Engineer against the W.A.NO.2158/2006 -2- said quota. Therefore, the vacancies comprised in Ext.P7 which occurred before the amendment ought to have been filled up as per the qualification existed in the pre-amended Rules. Admittedly the appellant obtained degree in the year 2000 and the amendment came into force in the year 2001. The notification was published in the year 2006. The vacancies notified are only three. Nowhere, it is shown that any of these three vacancies had occurred between 2000 and 2001 so as to make the appellant eligible for appointment even if such contention is accepted. In the absence of such details and evidence, it cannot be stated that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not justified. The Writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

JUDGE

Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU,

JUDGE

ks. TRUE COPY W.A.NO.2158/2006 -3- ks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.