IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1336 of 2009(H)
1. SASI.G,S/O.GOVINDAN,AGED 34 YRS,
... Petitioner
2. ANITHA.R,D/O.RAJAYYAN,AGED 33 YRS,
3. SOBHA.S, D/O.SUNDARAN, AGED 26 YRS,
4. ANSHI LAWRANCE,A.L.NIVAS,CHERUVARAKONAM,
5. SREEKALA.P, D/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 32 YRS,
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.SREENARAYANA DAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.1336/2009-H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are having educational qualifications of S.S.L.C
and Survey Test Lower (Chain Survey). The Kerala Public Service
Commission called for applications from qualified candidates to the post of
Surveyor Grade II in the department of Survey and Land Records as per
Ext.P2 notification. In Ext.P2, pass in chain survey test along with S.S.L.C
is prescribed as one of the qualifications in the absence of better qualified
persons. The petitioners assert that they are having the said qualifications
and, accordingly, they applied for the above post. Written test was held on
13/10/2006 and they have participated in it. Thereafter, as directed, they
have produced the documents to prove their qualification before the first
respondent for verification. But by Ext.P3, the petitioners were intimated
that their applications have been rejected pointing out that they do not have
the prescribed qualification. According to them, they are having the
alternate qualification prescribed in Ext.P2 and based on that they are
W.P.(C) No.1336/2009
-:2:-
qualified to be included in the select list. They submitted Ext.P4
representation before the first respondent praying for necessary action in the
matter.
2. Whether the qualification that is relied upon by the petitioner is
acceptable or not is a matter to be considered by the first respondent. But
still as the petitioners have been allowed to participate in the test, they are
entitled to know the reasons for rejection of their application. In Ext.P3,
those reasons have not been stated in detail. Therefore, there will be a
direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 in accordance with law.
The petitioners have to be given an appropriate reply in the matter
supported by reasons with reference to the contentions raised in the writ
petition. Appropriate action shall be taken within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The petitioners will
produce a copy of the writ petition along with the copy of this judgment
before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms