Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.SURESH BABU versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.SURESH BABU v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 34381 of 2006(R) [2007] RD-KL 2599 (5 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34381 of 2006(R)

1. R.SURESH BABU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

3. SUPERINTENDENT,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :05/02/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 34381 OF 2006

Dated this the 5th February, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner applied for the post of Care Taker (Male) in the Social Welfare Department pursuant to notification issued by the respondent-Commission on 27.5.2006 inviting applications from qualified and eligible candidates. One of the essential qualifications prescribed for the post as seen from Ext.P1 notification is experience for a minimum period of one year in any government establishment or recognised juvenile institution or control boards or orphanages etc. approved by the Director of Social Welfare Department. The petitioner produced certificates to show that he had the requisite period of experience. The Commission, on a perusal of the certificates produced by him, informed him as per Ext.P9 order dated 13.12.2006 that he did not have the requisite period of experience and that his experience as a Casual Labour was not acceptable. Challenging the above order of the Commission, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He has sought for a direction to the second respondent to accept the experience of the petitioner as Care Taker as shown in Exts.Ext.P5, P6 & P8.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the second WPC 34381/2006 2 respondent it is stated that out of the four experience certificates produced by the petitioner, the certificate showing experience for a period of 289 days evidenced by Ext.P6 is not acceptable because experience as a daily wage employee, and that too, not continuous cannot be accepted as experience prescribed by the special rules. The above contention is taken based on the provisions contained in Sub-rule(ab) of Rule 10 of K.S & S.S.R. The above sub-rule reads as follows:-

"Where the Special Rules or Recruitment Rules for a post in any service prescribe qualification of experience, it shall, unless otherwise specified, be one gained by persons on temporary or regular appointment in capacities other than paid or unpaid apprentices, trainees and casual labourers in Central or State Government service or in Public Sector Undertaking or Registered Private Sector Undertaking, after acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the Commission that Ext.P6 Certificate is not acceptable cannot be sustained since neither Ext.P1 notification nor the sample proforma attached to the notification insists that experience gained as a daily wage employee will be eschewed from consideration. Counsel submits that the sample proforma, in fact, indicates that daily wage engagement also will constitute experience for the notified post. WPC 34381/2006 3

4. On going through the statutory provision namely, Rule 10(ab) of K.S & S.S.R relied on by the Commission it admits no doubt that experience gained as Casual Labourer cannot can be of any assistance to a candidate in respect of posts which come within the proviso to the sub-rule and not in other cases. The proviso is not attracted to the facts of this case. The experience of the petitioner is not one gained as a factory worker. The experience gained by him as per Ext.P6 is not continuous also. Therefore, the Commission cannot be found fault with for discounting 289 days. The Commission is discharging the constitutional duty of selecting candidates for appointment in Government service. It is the desire of the appointing authority, namely, the Government or the departmental authority, that only those who satisfy the qualifications prescribed in Rule 10 of K.S & S.S.R are selected. Hence the Commission cannot bypass the statutory mandate.

5. Counsel for the petitioner says that there is no concrete or cogent materials to show that the daily wage engagement was not continuous. Even assuming that the stand taken by the petitioner is correct, he will not satisfy the requirement of Sub-rule (ab) of Rule 10 K.S & S.S.R. For the above reasons, I am inclined to uphold the stand taken by the respondent-Commission. The writ WPC 34381/2006 4 petition fails and is dismissed. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.