IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1929 of 2008(D)
1. ANIL KUMAR.S., L.D.TYPIST,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
4. SRI.ABHILASH, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.1929 of 2008-D
------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing
counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission.
2. The petitioner who is presently working as LD Typist in the
Archeology Department, has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P5
and P7 and seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the post
of Confidential Assistant in the Archeology Department by direct
recruitment. The petitioner contends that though after the notification
inviting applications was published, he has acquired the qualifications for
promotion as Confidential Assistant and as qualified hands are now
available in the department, direct recruitment cannot be resorted to.
3. The issue raised by the petitioner is covered against him by
the decision of this Court in Jeevamol V. State of Kerala (2009(1) KLT
881). In that case a similar claim was repelled by this Court. It was held
that once a vacancy is reported to Kerala Public Service Commission, it
cannot be filled up by promoting an in-service candidate who becomes
qualified or is appointed thereafter. In the instant case, the vacancy was
W.P(C) No.1929 of 2008-D 2
reported to the Commission on 31.1.2004. The vacancy arose on
18.6.2003. At that point of time the petitioner was not qualified. The
petitioner entered service only on 17.3.2004. Therefore, applying the
principle laid down by this Court in Jeevamol V. State of Kerala (supra),
the petitioner’s request cannot be entertained.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
ab