IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20788 of 2008(Y)
1. BAIJU.K.D, S/O.K.S.DIVAKARAN, KANDATHIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 20788 OF 2008 Y
====================
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Responding to the notification issued by the 1st respondent for the
post of Instrument Mechanic in Medical Education Department, petitioner
submitted an application. The special qualification prescribed was Diploma
in Mechanical Engineering with minimum one year experience in
“Manufacturing and Servicing” of Scientific equipments or Industrial
Training Institute Certificate in Instrument Mechanic Trade with atleast 3
years experience in the “Manufacture and servicing” preferably Optical
instruments, Electro-medical equipments etc. The application made by the
petitioner was initially rejected on the ground that the experience
certificate produced was defective.
2. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court
as WP(C) No.34201/07. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner
obtained Ext.P5 certificate to the effect that he had experience in “repair
and service charge of various instruments in the hospitals”. Thereafter,
when the above writ petition came up for orders before this court, the
case was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, directing that the application
WPC 20788/08
:2 :
made by the petitioner shall be processed and considered taking into
account Ext.P5 certificate as well.
3. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent
and by Ext.P7, the certificate was held to be inadequate as the petitioner
did not have the experience in “Manufacture and Servicing” prescribed in
the notification issued.
4. Evidently, even Ext.P5 certificate only testifies the experience
of the petitioner in repair and service while the prescribed experience is in
manufacture and servicing. Thus the petitioner admittedly lacks
experience in manufacture and therefore, I do not find anything irregular
in Ext.P7 communication issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner.
Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp