Allowed

The Kerala Public Service Commission v. Rethna Bhai and Others

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012WA/827/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the Kerala PSC. The bench set aside the Single Judge's direction for the PSC to consider the respondent for appointment by transfer as a Lecturer, as her U.P. School Assistant experience did not meet the High School Assistant rule requirement.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the learned Single Judge directing PSC to consider the first respondent as a candidate for appointment by transfer is vacated.

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

WA.No. 827 of 2010 ( ) IN WPC/14969/2004 ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.14969/2004 DATED 10-11-2009 APPELLANT/R-1 IN WP:

¶8

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND R-2&3 IN WP:

¶11

RETHNA BHAI W/O. RAMESHAN, SREEHARI, MUTTANNUR, P.O.PATTANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

R1 BY SRI.E.C.BINEESH R1 BY SMT.M.B.SHYNI R2&3 BY G.P. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DT.3.10.2007 IN WPC 14969/04 & WPC 21327/03.

¶18

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.19.2.2008 IN RP 1126/07 & RP 1051/07. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.10.11.2009 IN RP 1119/07. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 9459/08. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA 952/08. ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 22169/08.

¶19

ANNEXURE A7: .DO. IN W.A. 1687/08.

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶23

.................................................................... Writ Appeal No.827 of 2010

¶24

.................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of February, 2012.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶27

PSC has filed this Writ Appeal challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) filed by the respondent. We have heard Standing Counsel for PSC and also counsel appearing for respondents.

¶28

First respondent while working as U.P.S.A. applied for the

¶29

post of Lecturer in a Training College in the quota reserved for High School Assistants. Her application was rejected for the reason that experience required under the Rules was in the High School and not as U.P.S.A. The first respondent in fact got posting later as a High School Assistant, but as on the date of making application for the post of Lecturer in the Training College i.e. 30.1.2002, she did not have the three years' experience as a High School Assistant. Therefore, the application was rejected. However, in the W.P.(C) the learned Single Judge accepted the teaching experience in the U.P. School as sufficient

¶30

W.A.827/2010

¶31

¶32

for being considered for appointment by transfer as a Lecturer in the Training College. The learned Single Judge also directed PSC to consider the first respondent as a candidate from direct recruitment quota which finding is accepted by PSC.

¶33

As a result of the judgment, PSC placed first respondent as Rank No.1A in the list prepared for direct recruitment. However, since appointments were made in 2004 and the list is no longer valid, the inclusion in the rank list does not serve any purpose for the first respondent. PSC, however, challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing PSC to consider first respondent as a candidate for appointment by transfer. The specific case of the PSC is that first respondent's teaching experience in U.P. School does not make her eligible for appointment by transfer as a Lecturer in the Training College.

¶34

After hearing both sides, we are convinced that the teaching experience contemplated in the Rules is as High School Assistant and so much so, the learned Single Judge went wrong in granting relief to the first respondent contrary to the condition in the Rules which is

¶35

W.A.827/2010

¶36

¶37

incorporated in the Notification itself. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating judgment of the learned Single Judge in regard to direction to PSC to consider first respondent as a candidate for appointment by transfer. It is open to the first respondent to apply for

¶38

future vacancies arising in the quota reserved for High School Assistants.

¶39

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶40

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH Judge

¶41

pms

The Kerala Public Service Commission v. Rethna Bhai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala Public Service Commission v. Rethna Bhai and Others

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

P.Padmanabhan Vs P.Dileep Kumar

M/S.Asian Paints Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

P.B.Abdul Salam Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Pradheeksha Shaju Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bindu Mathew Vs the Manager, Corporate Management of Csi Schools in Malabar and Wayanad