IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 907 of 2009(D)
1. P.T.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.THANKAYYAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,K.P.S.C,DISTRICT
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
R.P. NO.907 OF 2009
IN
W.P.(C) No. 17477 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.
The petitioner, who is working as Peon in the Excise Department
applied for appointment by transfer as Excise Guard. His
application was rejected after a written test was held on the ground
that he was over aged. The writ petition was thereupon filed
challenging the said decision and seeking a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the Kerala Public Service Commission to
consider him for appointment to the post of Excise Guard by
transfer. Reliance was placed on Ext.P5 judgment of a learned
single Judge of this Court in support of the contention that no upper
age limit has been fixed for appointment of Excise Guard. By
judgment delivered on 14.8.2009, I allowed the writ petition and
directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to conduct a
physical efficiency test within three months from the date on which
the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment.
R.P. No.907/09
2
2. In this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the said
judgment. He contends that a physical efficiency test is not
warranted in the case of appointment by transfer. In my opinion, as
this contention was not raised in the writ petition and as the petitioner
had no case in the writ petition that he is not required to undergo the
physical efficiency test, this review petition is not maintainable. It
was open to the petitioner even at the stage when he filed the writ
petition to challenge the holding of the physical efficiency test. The
petitioner who did not raise such a challenge in the writ petition is in
my opinion not entitled to raise such a contention by way of a review
petition.
The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps