Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABHILASH R., S/O.RAJEENDRAN versus KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABHILASH R., S/O.RAJEENDRAN v. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - WP(C) No. 24410 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 15349 (10 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24410 of 2007(E)

1. ABHILASH R., S/O.RAJEENDRAN,
... Petitioner

2. JOSHKUMAR V., S/O.VENKIDACHALAM CHETTIAR

Vs

1. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
... Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :10/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.


===============
W.P.(C) NO. 24410 OF 2007
====================

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to interview them for the post of Manager Grade IV, pursuant to Ext.P1 vacancy notification.

2. In Ext.P1, one of the posts for which application was invited is Manager Grade IV and the qualification and experience prescribed is as extracted below. Qualification & Experience: Bsc Degree in Hospitality Administration awarded by IHMCT managed by the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology or Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology awarded by IHMCT managed by the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology with minimum 2 years of post-qualification experience.

3. As admitted by the petitioners in para 5 and 6 of the writ petition, they do not possess the qualifications prescribed in the notification. The first petitioner possesses WPC 24410/07 a Degree in Hotel and catering Management from the Madras University and the 2nd petitioner holds Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology awarded by Empee Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Chennai. These are not qualifications which are prescribed in Ext.P1 and therefore petitioners are obviously ineligible to be considered for the post.

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Ext.P1, where it is stated that "if your profile matches our requirements, send your application in plain paper along with detailed bio-data containing particulars of qualification, age and experience: attested copies of certificates and a recent passport size photograph." Relying on the expression 'matches our requirements' counsel submits that qualification possessed WPC 24410/07 by the petitioners, being equivalent to what is prescribed in Ext.P1, matches the requirements of the respondents and therefore they should be allowed an opportunity to be considered in the selection process. I am not prepared to accept the submission. The expression "matches our requirements" only mean that those who satisfies the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1, can respond to Ext.P1. The first respondent has clearly laid down their prescription in the column "qualification and experience". Only those candidates who satisfies the requirements as laid down in the notification alone are eligible to be considered against the post. The notification does not even recognize any equivalent qualifications . Therefore there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner.

5. Prescribing qualifications for a post is essentially WPC 24410/07 within the domain of the Rule Making Authority and except in a situation of extreme arbitrariness, this Court will not be justified in stepping into such areas. In this case, I do not see any pleading, where the prescription in Ext.P1 is challenged. Petitioner then submits that there are several employees in the respondent Corporation, who possess qualification similar to what they possess. Apart from the fact that there are no materials in this respect, relevant notifications issued by the Corporation at the time when they were recruited could have prescribed what they possessed. Otherwise such candidates who did not have the qualifications specified in the notification could not have been selected by the Corporation.

6. Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that this post has been left within the purview of PSC by virtue of WPC 24410/07 the provisions contained in the Kerala Public Service Commission (consultation by Corporation and Companies) Act and therefore Ext.P1 itself is invalid. This argument is raised only the basis that the Corporation also figures in the list of organisations to which the Act applies. There is no material to support the plea that this particular post has been brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission, although several of the posts in the respondent Corporation have been left within its purview. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is only to be dismissed and I do so.

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.