IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 636 of 2009(S)
1. SEENAMOL K.R., W/O.JINNISHH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUSHPALATHA, PUTHANPARAMPIL,
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL,
4. INSPECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, KOTTAYAM
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :08/07/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-------------------------------
R.P.No. 636 OF 2009
--------------------------------
Dated, this the 8th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The 4th respondent in the writ petition is the review
petitioner. In the judgment under review, there is an
observation that “at the time of registration, they have to
produce materials before the Employment Officer regarding
their caste and the said officer on being prima facie satisfied
that the candidates belonged to Scheduled Caste community,
sponsors them when their turn arises.” The above observation
was made, when the 4th respondent pointed out that the
candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange are
allowed to participate in the selection without producing their
caste certificate. The review petitioner has produced
Annexure-A1 to show that at the time of registration, a
candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste need not produce his
caste certificate. Even assuming, the observation made by us
is wrong and Annexure-A1 would show that caste certificate
need not be produced by the Scheduled Caste candidates for
registering with the Employment Exchange, still that point will
not have any bearing on the fate of the case of the review
R.P.No.636/2009 2
petitioner. Annexure-A2, produced along with Ext.P1,
stipulates that applications should be submitted in the
prescribed form appended to this notification along with
attested copies of certificates showing age, caste and
educational qualifications. According to the review petitioner,
she need only produce certificates showing her caste and not
proving her caste. But, the appointing authority took the view
that the above stipulation intends that the candidates should
produce certificates proving their age, caste and educational
qualifications. If such a view is taken by the appointing
authority, the same cannot be said to be perverse or one
which no man in his senses will take. An administrative
decision within jurisdiction can be condemned, if only, it is
one which no man in his senses will take. The view taken by
the appointing authority is a plausible view. Therefore,
neither the Tribunal nor this Court can interfere with the
decision. Even assuming, the new ground urged by the review
petitioner is valid, still the judgment cannot be reviewed.
Accordingly, the Review Petition fails and it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps