Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.V.SUNNY versus K.M.KURIAKOSE, S/O.MATHEW

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.V.SUNNY v. K.M.KURIAKOSE, S/O.MATHEW - WA No. 2285 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2653 (6 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2285 of 2006()

1. K.V.SUNNY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.M.KURIAKOSE, S/O.MATHEW,
... Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR,

3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,

4. THE SECRETARY,

5. THE SECRETARY,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :06/12/2006

O R D E R

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

W.A. NO. 2285 OF 2006

Dated this the 6th day of December 2006



JUDGMENT

Abdul Gafoor, J

A vacancy in the post of U.D. Clerk in a private affiliated college occurred on 01.03.1999. It is the admitted case of the appellant/4th respondent that neither he, nor the writ petitioner, was qualified as on the date. Far later, the appellant/4th respondent in the Writ Petition appeared for the examination in the obligatory departmental test on 13.07.2000, the result of which was declared on 16.10.2000. The writ petitioner completed the age of 50 years and became eligible for test exemption on 19.9.2000 earlier than the declaration of the result of the examination in which the appellant had appeared. Thus, he is the person first qualified, when none was qualified on the date of occurrence of vacancy. The person who became the first qualified shall be promoted is the normal rule. The contention of the appellant is that he shall be deemed W.A. No. 2285 of 2006 2 to have qualified on the next day of the examination that he had written i.e., on 14.07.2000. This contention cannot be countenanced as it does not have a statutory backing. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria v. C. M athew ( AIR 1980 SC 1230) that a person shall be said to be qualified only when the result of the examination is made known. So, he became qualified only on 16.10.2000. One is entitled for test exemption on attaining the age of 50 years is admitted. The writ petitioner become so eligible on 19.09.2000 earlier than the declaration of the result of the test undertaken by the appellant. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.

K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE

K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

RV W.A. No. 2285 of 2006 3


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.