Dismissed

V.S.Sinil v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Kerala HC22 Feb 2008RP/107/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a review petition challenging eligibility for the Forest Rangers Course. It upheld that a Master of Management Science degree does not satisfy the requisite Bachelor of Science qualification mandated by the notification.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed holding that the applicant's Master of Management Science degree did not meet the eligibility criteria for the Forest Rangers Course.

V.S.Sinil Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929

¶7

R.P. No. 107 of 2008

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1624/2007 Dated 25/07/2007

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶10

V.S. SINIL, S/O. V.K. SREEDHARAN, FORESTER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AST PLACHERRY, FOREST STATION, ERUMELI RANGE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FOREST EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, NEW DELHI.

¶15

3. INDIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, P.O. NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL-480006.

¶16

4. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

6. S. HEERALAL, FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

7. HARIKRISHNAN K.V., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

8. PAVITHRAN P., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

9. HARICHANDRAN B., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

10. SOMARAJAN P., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

11. ANILKUMAR P.K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

12. HARILAL M.D., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

13. HABY C.K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

14. SHANAVAS K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

15. JOSHY SEBASTIAN, FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

16. SANIL I.P., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

17. SHAJI J., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶30

18. JYOTHI K.S., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

19. RENJITH KUMAR P., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

20. SHANTRI TOM, FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶33

21. MANOJ K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶34

22. PIUS K.T., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶35

23. RAVINDRAN P., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶36

24. JAYAPRAKASH K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶37

25. SAJU K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶38

26. SUNILKUMAR K., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶39

27. DINESH SHANKAR N.T., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶40

28. MANOJ K.S., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶41

29. SURESH J., FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶42

30. ARUNESH K.V.,

¶43

FORESTER, C/O. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶44

BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C. K.P.S.C. MR. T.A. SHAJI, S.C. M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶45

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON 22/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

¶47

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2008

¶48

Antony Dominic, J.

¶49

The issue raised in the writ petition was regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to undergo Forest Rangers' Course in Forestry Department for the year 2006-07. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 14.6.2007 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and it was aggrieved by such judgment the writ appeal was filed. The writ appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 25.7.2007.

¶50

In this review petition, counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the petitioner was qualified to be considered to undergo Forest Rangers' Course. It was contended that while dismissing the writ petition and the writ appeal, this Court did not advert to Ext. P3 series of certificates produced by the review

¶51

R.P. No.107/08 in W.A No.1624/07

¶52

¶53

petitioner. It was also argued that the degree in Master of Management Science obtained by the petitioner is a sufficient qualification and it also pre-supposes that the petitioner has a degree in Science. According to the counsel, these issues were not considered at the time when the writ appeal was dismissed and hence the judgment deserves to be reviewed.

¶54

A reading of the judgment under review shows that the issue whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner would meet the requirements of Ext. P1 notification issued by the Public Service Commission was considered by the Division Bench and it was held that the qualification prescribed in the notification is a Bachelors Degree in Science and not a degree in Social Science or Masters Degree in Management Science. Thus it was finding that the qualification possessed by the petitioner does not meet the requirements of Ext. P1 notification issued by the Public Service Commission that the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. Strictly applying the principles for invoking the review jurisdiction, though we do not find any merit in this review petition, still in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel, we have again examined whether the contentions raised by the

¶55

R.P. No.107/08 in W.A No.1624/07

¶56

¶57

petitioner has any substance.

¶58

The petitioner is a Commerce Graduate who has been awarded degree in Master of Management Science by the Faculty of Science of Mahatma Gandhi University. Ext.P3 are the certificates that were issued to him. Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the P.S.C. The educational qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 is that the candidate must possess Bachelors Degree (or its equivalent) in Science or Engineering of any recognised University with at least one of the subjects mentioned therein. In our considered view, the Degree of Science mentioned therein is only Physical Science or Natural Science as is commonly understood, and it cannot be a Degree in Social Science or Management Science. We cannot be guided only by the nomenclature of the qualification possessed by the petitioner.

¶59

This question has been elaborately considered by the learned Single Judge, who has held that the Management Science can not be treated as a Science subject. This was again considered by the Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal of the petitioner. We have absolutely no reason or material to conclude that the view taken by the Division Bench is vitiated for any reason.

¶60

Petitioner contended that the Masters Degree he

¶61

R.P. No.107/08 in W.A No.1624/07

¶62

¶63

possesses pre-supposes that he is a graduate in Science. This contention appears to be raised relying on Ext. P8, a communication issued by the Government of Kerala informing that general rules have been amended to the aforesaid effect. As already noticed, what the petitioner in fact possesses is only a degree in Commerce. Even otherwise, what is canvassed by the petitioner can arise only if the post-graduate degree that he possesses is accepted to be one in Science, which is Natural Science or Physical Science. Since we have not accepted this contention of the petitioner, there is no question of recognising that in view of his post-graduate degree, he possesses a degree in Science as well.

¶64

We do not find any merit in this review petition. Review petition is therefore dismissed.

¶65

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶66

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶67

jan/-

V.S.Sinil v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Sinil v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev.R. Vs the R.T.a.,Kollam

Mani George Vs the Chief Engineer

Dr.Antony Alappat Vs District Collector & Another

Vasantha Vs Secretary, Rta/Rto, Vatakara

K.Mohammedkutty Vs the Secretary, R.T.a., Malappuram

P.T. Mohan Vs State of Kerala