IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35681 of 2007(W)
1. NAVAS.H., AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :01/12/2007
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
=========================
W.P.(C)NO.35681 OF 2007
=========================
Dated this the 1st day of December 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as a Junior Scientific Officer in the
Government District Hospital, Kollam, on a provisional basis. Ext.P2
notification was issued by the 4th respondent inviting applications for
the post of Junior Scientific Officer and certain other posts. The
qualifications prescribed therein is B.Sc.MLT (Government Medical
College) and five years experience. The age limit mentioned therein is
20 to 40. Apparently, the petitioner alone applied pursuant to Ext.P2 to
the post of Junior Scientific Officer. Subsequently Ext.P4 notification
was issued by the 4th respondent again inviting applications for the
post of Junior Scientific Officer, on a provisional basis. Certain changes
have been effected in Ext.P2. The requirement of prior experience is
deleted and the maximum age has been enhanced to 45. Petitioner
responded to Ext.P4 also and thereafter the petitioner has challenged
Ext.P4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no fresh
selection should have been undertaken under Ext.P4. There is a
change in the qualification and prior experience when Ext.P4 is issued.
W.P.(C)No.35681/2007 2
This apparently was intended to facilitate appointments for extraneous
reasons, it is contended.
3. It is conceded that only one person had responded to Ext.P2
for the post of Junior Scientific Officer, namely, the petitioner himself.
Apparently, the 4th respondent thought that the insistence of prior
experience may have to be deleted and the age limit will also have to
be enhanced if more number of persons are to respond. I cannot find
anything illegal in Ext.P4 in that regard.
4. Learned counsel further submits that he was not intimated of
the results of the selection conducted pursuant to Ext.P2. It may be
noted that it is only a provisional appointment, that was contemplated
under Ext.P2 and separate intimation as such may not be required.
5. In the ultimate analysis, since what is contemplated is only
provisional appointment and there is no prescription in Ext.P4
regarding either qualification or age limit which is either in violation of
any statutory prescription or otherwise goes against the prescribed
qualification and requirements, there are no grounds as such to
interfere with Ext.P5.
6. If nevertheless the petitioner has a grievance that any
irregular procedure is being followed in the matter of effecting
appointment to the post of Junior Scientific officer, it is open to him to
W.P.(C)No.35681/2007 3
approach the government with a representation giving suitable details
and if such representation is received, the Government shall look into
it and take an appropriate decision in that regard.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI, JUDGE
css/