Review petition filed regarding rejection of appointment applicant based on lack of required experience in reputed establishments. Court found no error in prior judgment relying on precedent disallowing unaided sector experience.
Review Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum if aggrieved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940
RP.No. 701 of 2018 IN WP(C). 5226/2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5226/2016 of HIGHCOURT
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
INDU V.G, W/O.PRADEEP M.S, AGED 40 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, 24/2009, MANKAVE P.O, KOZHIKODE-673007. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
OTHER PRESENT:
SC,KSEB.SMT.A.G.ANEETHA, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN (SC,PSC)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.ASHA, J.
R.P.No.701 of 2018
in W.P(C) No.5226 OF 2016
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2018
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this Review Petition on the ground that this Court has not considered the eligibility of the petitioner with reference to the qualification which was published in Ext.P1, which included 2 years experience as Public Relations Officer in any of the reputed establishments.
heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.
are as stated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. That does not mean that this Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner that she was qualified in tune with Ext.P1 notification. But the claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the KSEB seeing that she was only a Student Welfare Officer in Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, which is an unaided sector. While accepting that, this Court had found that the petitioner cannot be said to have been working
in any institution of high repute similar to Government Departments or Public Sector Undertakings and that any experience would not be sufficient for appointment to the post, relying on the judgment in District Co-
3
R.P.No.701 of 2018 in W.P(C) No.5226 OF 2016
operative Bank, Palakkad v. Dinesh M and others : 2012 (3) KHC 627. Therefore, I do not find any reason for undertaking a review of the judgment. It is upto the review petitioner to move appropriate forum in case she is aggrieved by the judgment.
Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, having only student welfare officer experience in an unaided sector, qualifies for the post as per the notification requiring experience in reputed establishments.
Whether the grounds asserted in the review petition disclose any error requiring re-examination of the prior judgment.
Whether the prior judgment remitted to the lower authority was correctly turned down.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
District Cooperative Bank, Palakkad v. Dinesh M and othersRelied on¶23
District Cooperative Bank, Palakkad v. Dinesh M and others : 2012 (3) KHC 627
Indu V.G
The Kerala State Electricity Board
P.V. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
