Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHANNYA CHANDRAN, W/O. SHIBU KRISHNAN versus SECRETARY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DHANNYA CHANDRAN, W/O. SHIBU KRISHNAN v. SECRETARY - WP(C) No. 14731 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 8414 (24 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14731 of 2007(D)

1. DHANNYA CHANDRAN, W/O. SHIBU KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SECRETARY,
... Respondent

2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

3. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :24/05/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 14731 OF 2007

Dated this the 24thday of May, 2007



J U D G M E N T

In November 2005, the Kerala Public Service Commission had issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher. Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification to apply for the post at that time. It is conceded by the petitioner that she acquired the necessary qualification only on June 20, 2006 though the last date for receipt of applications in terms of the notification mentioned above, was December 12, 2006.

2. It is on record that the written examination conducted by the Commission was cancelled because of certain defects noticed by it later. It is also beyond controversy that the Commission is about to conduct another written examination on the basis of the same notification.

3. The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is "to issue an appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the qualifying exam for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher in Journalism as notified in Ext.P1 notification." WPC NO.14731/07 2

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, I do not find any merit in the above contention. As indicated earlier, petitioner was not qualified to apply for the post in question either on the date of the notification or on the last date prescribed therein. It is futile on the part of the petitioner to contend that the Commission has to be directed to to give her an opportunity to participate in the selection process on the basis of Ext.P1 notification. The Commission has already taken steps to conduct a fresh written test on the basis of the notification issued by it in November 2005 since the petitioner was not admittedly qualified to apply for the post in question on the basis of the said notification, it will not be just or proper to issue a direction as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00

JUDGMENT

1ST MARCH, 2007


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.