Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRASEKHARAN P. versus KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHANDRASEKHARAN P. v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WP(C) No. 19245 of 2005(N) [2007] RD-KL 14856 (3 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19245 of 2005(N)

1. CHANDRASEKHARAN P.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :03/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.


===============
W.P.(C) NO. 19245 OF 2005
====================

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who had applied for the Administrative Officer Gr.II in response to Ext.P1 notification is challenging Ext.P15 communication issued by the PSC rejecting his application for the reason that he did not have the required experience and that the experience he had, did not make him eligible to be considered for the post in question. The petitioner was holding the post of PA to the District Development Officer, Scheduled Castes and the same has been re-designated by Ext.P14 order as Assistant District Development Officer, Scheduled Castes. Although the petitioner has raised several grounds and produced several documents in support of his claim, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that Government have clarified in their letter dated 22/5/90 that the post of PA to District Development Officer in the Scheduled Caste Department do not come under the purview of the orders issued in terms of G.O.M.S. 140/76/PD dated 15/5/76 WPC 19245/05 which defined "supervisory experience" and "supervisory post", and the same has been produced as Ext.R1(a). Since the post held by the petitioner is included in the statement appended to Ext.R1(a), the petitioner has to be held as not having the experience prescribed in Ext.P1 notification and therefore he is ineligible. Even after production of Ext.R1(a), the petitioner has not challenged the same and hence going by the terms of Ext.R1 (a), admittedly, petitioner is ineligible and for that reason first respondent was justified in rejecting his application. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed and I do so, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.R1(a), if he is so advised. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp


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.