Disposed

Lekshmi P.S. v. Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union

Kerala HC3 Feb 2021WP(C)/4/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a selection process, the respondent counsel objected to court interference and noted the petitioner failed to produce an experience certificate in prescribed form. The judge directed the petitioner to submit the certificate within two days, stating reliability is the respondent's domain, and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to produce Ext.P7 in prescribed format within two days.

Lekshmi P.S. Vs Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.4 OF 2021(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LEKSHMI P.S. AGED 37 YEARS W/O SHIBU M, KARTHIKA, CRA-64, CHEMBUKONAM LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV SHRI.VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR SHRI.SREEKUMAR K.R.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION CORPORATE OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-82 024, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶10

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION, CORPORATE OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-682 024.

¶11

R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.K.ANAND(SR.),SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.4 OF 2021(A)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2021

¶19

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Milma. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the petitioner has not produced the experience certificate in the prescribed form and that there is nothing available to examine the genuineness of the documents which she has produced along with the writ petition.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document attested in prescribed form is available and it can be produced at any time. She has not produced it earlier, since there is no direction from this Court.

¶21

Though the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent objected to the propriety of the Court's interference in selection process of this nature, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the

¶22

WP(C).No.4 OF 2021(A)

¶23

¶24

petitioner to produce the Ext.P7 in the prescribed format within two days from today. The respondent shall receive

¶25

it. The question of reliability of the certificate is within the domain of the respondent.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly closed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/3-2

WP(C).No.4 OF 2021(A)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 9.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF BSC DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MBA CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 16.12.2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23.12.2020 OF DR.NAIRS HOSPITAL
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2010 OF NATIONAL COLLEGE, KOLLAM
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06-01-2021 OF THE RECRUITMENT TEAM OF CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT.
RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 09.09.2020

¶37

RUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

Lekshmi P.S. v. Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekshmi P.S. v. Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union

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

Laiju Joseph Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Mathew Oommen, Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths

Proprietor, Nisharani.C Vs the Additional Registering Authority

Niranja Kumar. P., Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Nidheesh.P. Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

Abdul Rasheed.N. Vs the Regional Transport Authority