IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 39 of 2010(W)
1. ABDUL JABBAR U.C., AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
... Respondent
2. THE LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
3. NASAR A., S/O.AHMED,
4. CHERIAKOYA K.K., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
R.P.39/2010 in WP(C).36622/2009
--------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2010
ORDER
1. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated
18.12.2009 upholding the selection and appointment of the 3rd
respondent as Driver under respondents 1 and 2. In this Review
Petition, the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent was
unqualified for the post, for the reason that he did not have the
prescribed five years’ experience.
2. In view of the above specific averment, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 was
directed to get instructions in the matter. Accordingly, he has
obtained instructions and it is submitted that none of the
candidates who responded to Ext.P1 notification had the
prescribed five years experience and therefore, the length of
experience prescribed was relaxed and that it is on that basis,
the selection was conducted. According to him, petitioner is also
a beneficiary of such relaxation and that in the situation that
followed, the 3rd respondent came out successful.
R.P.39/10
2
3. However, it is now disclosed that although the 3rd
respondent had only two years’ and eight months’ experience,
petitioner had four years experience even going by Ext.P4 itself.
It is stated that Ext.P5 certificate certifying two more years
experience, was not accepted for the reason that it was issued by
a private individual.
4. From the above submission, it is obvious that while the 3rd
respondent did not have the prescribed length of experience, if
the experience as certified in Exts.P4 and P5 were taken,
petitioner would have been an eligible candidate. Prima facie, I
am not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for
respondents 1 and 2 that Ext.P5 certificate could not accepted
for the reason that it was issued by a private individual, since no
such restriction was incorporated in Ext.P1 Circular inviting
applications. Therefore, admittedly the candidate selected is an
ineligible candidate whereas the petitioner was prima facie at
least, an eligible candidate. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am
persuaded to think that an error has been committed by
dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the contentions
noticed above.
R.P.39/10
3
4. Therefore the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in W.P.(C).
36622/2009 will stand reviewed and the judgment is recalled.
Review Petition will stand allowed.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs