IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25127 of 2010(M)
1. M.PEER MOHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN KHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (J)
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL)
5. THE TRIVANDRUM PORT & HEAD LOAD WORKERS
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P(C)No.25127 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 15th September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Clerk/Cashier
under the fifth respondent society. In response to notification dated
24.4.2006 the petitioner submitted an application. At the time of
submission of the said application, in response to the said notification, he
was an employee of Trivandrum Port and Headload Workers Labour
Contract Workers Society Ltd.4245, Vallakkadavu in Thiruvananthapuram
District. Subsequently, he left the job. The grievance of the petitioner is
that even though he was selected based on his application, he is now
required to produce service certificate viz., a certificate to show that he is
continuing as an employee of the aforesaid society. In other words, the
stand of the respondents is that being an employee at the time of
submission of application and at the time of appointment are necessary to
consider a candidate under the quota set apart for employees of the
member societies. It is aggrieved by the said condition that this writ
petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, at the time of
submission of application he was an employee of the aforesaid society. In
the circumstances, the fact that he has subsequently abandoned the said
job shall not dis-entitle him from getting appointment under the quota set
WP(C).No.25127/2010 2
apart for employees of the member societies, it is submitted. Therefore,
the question posed for consideration is whether one should be in service
of a member society at the time of submission of application as also at
the time of appointment to get appointment under the quota set apart for
employees of the member societies.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the second
respondent brought to my notice a decision of this Court in Shibi.M.V. v.
State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC 774). Based on the same, it
is submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered
against the petitioner. Virtually, the petitioner also did not refute the said
contention. Having gone through the judgment of this Court reported in
2010 (3) KHC 774 (supra), I am of the view that the issue involved in
this case is squarely covered against the petitioner as per the said
decision. I am also perfectly agreeing with the aforesaid decision.
Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is
dismissed.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS