IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16255 of 2008(I)
1. SURESH KUMAR.M., PUTHUVELIKALAM,
... Petitioner
2. ISSUDHEEN.A., SHABNAM, VANOOR ROAD,
3. SASEENDRAN.N., ANTHAZHI (SANTHIDHAN),
4. KRISHNAKUMAR.K., PADINJARE HOUSE,
5. SUHAIR.S., AL AMEEN, T.B.ROAD,
6. RAMESH.M., S/O.MURUKAN.C., KUNNATH
7. SATHEESH KUMAR.M., KARAMPADAM HOUSE,
8. MANOJ.A., ARANGATTUPARAMBU HOUSE,
9. APPUKUTTAN.C., CHALUMPULLY, THADAKKAD,
10. NAZEER.A., KOKKERNY HOUSE,
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16255 of 2008 I
-------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are applicants for the post of
Third Grade Overseer/Tracer in the department of Public
Works and Irrigation. The qualifications prescribed are as
follows:
(i) Pass in SSLC examination or its
equivalent qualification and
(ii) Must possess any one of the
qualifications mentioned below:
(a) Lower Grade Drawing Group
Certificate KGTE or equivalent.
(b) Second Grade Certificate secured
by Draftsmen (Civil) Trainees
under T.T. Scheme, College of
Engineering or under Industria;
Training Centre conducted by
the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, after a
course of 18 months.
(c) Building Drawing and Estimating
(Higher or Lower) KGTE or
equivalent and any two of the
other Civil Engineering Subjects
under KGTE or equivalent.
W.P.(C).NO.16255/08
:: 2 ::
(d) Diploma in Civil Engineering (2
years course) of the Women’s
Polytechnics of the State.
(e) Diploma in Agricultural and
Rural Engineering given by the
Rural Institute, Thavanur.
(f) Vocational Higher Secondary
course Certificate in
Draftsmanship and Quantity
Surveying.
(g) Vocational Higher Secondary
Course Certificate in Building
Technology.”
2. The petitioners are certificate holders in ITC
(Civil) and therefore, they are duly qualified. But the
petitioners are aggrieved that when the list was
published, it contained the names of number of persons,
who are having engineering degree and who do not
possess the qualification as mentioned in the notification.
The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court
for directing the respondents to exclude the persons
having higher qualifications than that are prescribed in
Ext.P1 notification.
3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan and standing counsel for the
Public Service Commission Sri.Alexander Thomas.
W.P.(C).NO.16255/08
:: 3 ::
4. In my view, the issue is covered against the
petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court
reported in Jyothi K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission {JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85}. Learned
counsel for the petitioners refers to the judgment of a
Division Bench of this court reported in Partha Radha
& ors. v. State of Kerala {2000(3) ILR Kerala 53}.
No doubt, the proposition laid down therein supports the
case of the petitioners. But I have to take note of the
fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyothi’s
case is subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench
in Partha Radha’s case. This court is bound by the law
laid down in Jyothi’s case.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge