IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27432 of 2010(S)
1. SHERSHAD KHAN.M, MARAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY (EDUCATION),
3. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
5. NOORUL HASSAN.U,
6. BUSHRA.K, U.D.CLERK,
7. NOORUL HUDA.S.M,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :09/09/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
....................................................................
W.P.(C) No.27432 of 2010
....................................................................
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The only question raised in the W.P.(C) filed by the petitioner is
whether the C.A.T. was justified in holding that even after amendment
of the Recruitment Rules three years’ experience is required for direct
recruitees. The rival parties before us are both from the same stream
of direct recruitees. While the applicant in the O.A. is a Postgraduate
with three years teaching experience, the petitioner herein who was
selected in the course of selection pursuant to notification, is a M.Phil.
holder, which qualification is given preference under the amended
Rules. However, since the petitioner herein did not have teaching
experience, his selection was questioned before the C.A.T. and the
C.A.T. found that in the original Rules three years’ experience is
mandatory for selection to the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Standing
Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Administration submitted that there is omission in the amendment in as
2
much as experience was not simultaneously deleted when preferential
qualification was introduced. We do not think there is any need for us
to consider the omissions in the amendment because the Rule with the
amendment produced still provide for three years experience as a
requirement for eligibility. All what C.A.T. said is that even after the
amendment experience is not dispensed with and is retained as a
required qualification for eligibility for appointment. So much so, we
find no ground to interfere with the finding of the C.A.T. Even though
petitioner has raised a contention that the 5th respondent does not have
the required qualification, we do not think there is any need to consider
it because the Tribunal has only ordered fresh selection and it is upto
the concerned authority to consider eligibility and relative merits of all
candidates in fresh selection process. The W.P.(C) is, therefore,
dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
HARUN-UL-RASHID
Judge
pms