{"id":72514,"date":"2010-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010"},"modified":"2014-02-16T01:41:18","modified_gmt":"2014-02-15T20:11:18","slug":"stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 5217 of 2002(U)\n\n\n1. STANLY GEORGE A., ASSISTANT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n3. SHRI.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI.S.,\n\n4. SHRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, SECTION OFFICER,\n\n5. SMT.NAJEMA BEEVI H.A., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n6. SMT. USHAKUMARI K., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n7. SHRI.VIVEKANANDAN K., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n8. SMT.GABRIALAL K., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n9. SMT.AYISHA BEEVI S., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n10. SHRI. SASIKUMAR T.S., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n11. SHRI.CHANDRAN E., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n12. SHRI. RAJESAN J.S., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n13. SHRI. VIJAYA DAS S., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n14. SHRI. RAMAKRISHNA K.M., SECTION OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :07\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                     ================\n                    O.P.No.5217 OF 2002 (U)\n                                 &\n                 W.P.(C) NO. 12014 OF 2004 (E)\n                =====================\n\n             Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioners in these petitions are graduate typists.     Their<\/p>\n
grievance is that in the matter of promotion to the post of Section<\/p>\n
Officer, juniors to them in service have got promotion earlier to<\/p>\n
them. It is in this background, these petitions have been filed.<\/p>\n
     2.    In so far as OP No.5217\/2002 is concerned, the facts<\/p>\n
are that, petitioner, being a graduate, entered the service of the<\/p>\n
PSC as a Typist on 26\/10\/83. He claims to be eligible for by<\/p>\n
transfer appointment as Section Officer w.e.f. 1\/1\/2001.       It is<\/p>\n
stated that by Exts.P8 and P9, respondents 3 to 14 were<\/p>\n
appointed as Section Officers, overlooking his claims in as much<\/p>\n
as they joined service as Assistants only after 11\/5\/1984.<\/p>\n
     3.    In so far as the petitioners in WP(C) No.12014\/04 are<\/p>\n
concerned, their grievance is also similar.          Ext.P2 in OP<\/p>\n
No.5217\/2002, is a copy of the GO(P) No.138\/89\/GAD dated 5th of<\/p>\n
June, 1989. According to the petitioners, as per this Government<\/p>\n
Order, graduate Typists like them, are exempted from passing the<\/p>\n
OP No.5217\/2002 & WP(C) No.12014\/04<\/p>\n
                                 :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
suitability test for appointment to the post of Section Officer and<\/p>\n
that    the    Government      Order     itself provides    that  a<\/p>\n
Typist\/Confidential Assistant will not be appointed as Section<\/p>\n
Officer in preference to an Assistant, who has the next chance of<\/p>\n
appointment as Section Officer and whose total length of service<\/p>\n
is equal to or greater than that of the Typist\/Confidential<\/p>\n
Assistant. On this basis, counsel contends that since respondents<\/p>\n
in these petitions entered service subsequent to them, their total<\/p>\n
length of service is less than that of theirs and therefore, they<\/p>\n
could not have been preferred to them or given earlier<\/p>\n
appointment as Section Officers.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     It is further contended that although in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
Government Order viz., GO(P) No.219\/88\/GAD dated 17\/6\/88, vide<\/p>\n
clause (c) thereof, it is provided that in the matter of appointment<\/p>\n
to the post of Section Officer, Graduate Typists or Confidential<\/p>\n
Assistants will not overtake a Senior Grade Assistant or Assistant<\/p>\n
Grade I elder to him in age, in view of the provisions contained in<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 Government Order, the said Government Order has<\/p>\n
become redundant, and therefore, even going by the provisions of<\/p>\n
OP No.5217\/2002 & WP(C) No.12014\/04<\/p>\n
                                     :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P1, the party respondents herein could not have been given<\/p>\n
promotion earlier than the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    However, learned counsel for the PSC, in whose<\/p>\n
services petitioners and the respondents are working defends the<\/p>\n
earlier appointment given to the party respondents. According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the PSC, the suitability test is exempted<\/p>\n
in view of Note (3) to Ext.P2 Government Order referred to above.<\/p>\n
It is stated that in the Government Order itself, exemption has<\/p>\n
been given subject to the conditions laid down in Ext.P1 GO(P)<\/p>\n
No.219\/88\/GAD dated 17\/6\/88 referred to above. It is stated that<\/p>\n
going by Ext.P1, the party respondents being elder to them in age<\/p>\n
are entitled to be treated seniors to the petitioners who are<\/p>\n
younger to them in age.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    In so far as the challenge against Clause (C) of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
Government Order raised in WP(C) No.12014\/04 is concerned,<\/p>\n
that contention is answered by the PSC in its counter affidavit, in<\/p>\n
the following words:\n<\/p>\n
        In this connection, it is to be pointed out that the Ext.P2
\n        was issued by the Government in consultation with the
\n        Commission. Necessary proposals were formulated and
\n        placed by the Government and the Commission after
\n        considering various aspects involved in the matter<\/p>\n
OP No.5217\/2002 & WP(C) No.12014\/04<\/p>\n
                                 :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
       agreed to the proposals of the Government. The reason
\n       which weighed with the Government in proposing
\n       clause (c) of Ext.P2 Government order and found
\n       reasonable by the Commission is that one can enter in
\n       service   as  Typists\/Confidential  Assistants   in  the
\n       Government Secretariat (or in the office of the K.P.S.C)
\n       also) 3 to 5 years earlier in age than an Assistant who
\n       can    join  in  service   only  after   graduation.    A
\n       Typist\/Confidential Assistant can acquire graduation
\n       after entering the service and thereby acquire eligibility
\n       to get selection as Section as per the existing ratio at
\n       younger age than the Assistant and thus gain better
\n       prospects for further advancement than the directly
\n       recruited Assistants. In order to mitigate the hardship
\n       caused to the Assistants, Government incorporated a
\n       further condition to the rules to the effect that no
\n       graduate Typists\/Confidential Assistant who is younger
\n       in age to a directly recruited Assistant would become
\n       eligible for appointment as Section Officer and issued
\n       the orders in GO(Ms) No.219\/88\/GAD dt 17.6.88
\n       (Ext.P2). The clause (c) has been incorporated as a
\n       precaution so that injustice as aforesaid may not be
\n       brought about in the case of Assistants while exemption
\n       is granted to graduate Typists\/Confidential Assistants
\n       from passing the required suitability test. If no such
\n       condition was made, the exemption granted to
\n       graduate typists\/confidential Assistants would have
\n       been prejudicial to the interests of the Assistants. The
\n       intention was that no Section or staff who constitute the
\n       feeder category should be put to hardship or
\n       disadvantage by introduction of new rules to the benefit
\n       of a Section of the    feeder category ie. Confidential
\n       Assistants\/Typists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.    Two contentions are raised. One is that Ext.P1<\/p>\n
Government Order containing that Clause providing seniority to<\/p>\n
elder in age is redundant in view of Ext.P2, the subsequent<\/p>\n
OP No.5217\/2002 & WP(C) No.12014\/04<\/p>\n
                                  :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Government Order. The other contention raised is that the clauses<\/p>\n
contained in Exts.P1 and P2 are contradictory in nature, and<\/p>\n
therefor, the latter one, viz., Ext.P2, should prevail.<\/p>\n
     8.    As far as the contention that Ext.P1 Government Order<\/p>\n
containing Clauses (c) challenged in WP(C) No.12014\/04 is<\/p>\n
redundant is concerned, a reading of Ext.P2, the Government<\/p>\n
Order providing for exemption to Grade Typists from acquiring<\/p>\n
suitability test, it is provided that such exemption from the<\/p>\n
suitability test itself is subject to the conditions laid down in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, viz., GO(P) No.219\/88\/GAD dated 17\/6\/88. Therefore, since<\/p>\n
the Government Order itself has referred to GO(P) No.219\/88\/GAD<\/p>\n
dated 17\/6\/88and has incorporated the conditions of the said<\/p>\n
Government Order as condition for exemption, I am not<\/p>\n
persuaded to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioners that the Government Order has become<\/p>\n
redundant.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    The other contention that is raised is that Exts.P1 and<\/p>\n
P2 are contradictory in nature and therefore the latter one should<\/p>\n
prevail.   A    reading     of   Ext.P2    shows     that Graduate<\/p>\n
OP No.5217\/2002 & WP(C) No.12014\/04<\/p>\n
                                :6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Typists\/Confidential Typists will not be appointed as Section<\/p>\n
Officer, in preference to an Assistant, who has next chance of<\/p>\n
appointment as Section Officer, and whose total length of service<\/p>\n
is equal to or greater than the Typists\/Confidential Assistants.<\/p>\n
This provision will apply to a Typist\/Confidential Assistant, who<\/p>\n
has not claimed or enjoyed the benefit of exemption. In other<\/p>\n
words, this provision applies to a Graduate Typist or Confidential<\/p>\n
Assistant, who is qualified in all respects including in Suitability<\/p>\n
test. On the other hand, Note 3 providing for exemption applies<\/p>\n
to Graduate Typists, who have not passed Suitability Test and the<\/p>\n
Note provides that such Graduate Typists will enjoy the benefit of<\/p>\n
exemption, but however, subject to the conditions of GO(P)<\/p>\n
No.219\/88\/GAD dated 17\/6\/88. Therefore, these two Government<\/p>\n
Orders deal with two classes of Graduate Typists\/Confidential<\/p>\n
Assistants and Ext.P1 GO(P) No.219\/88\/GAD dated 17\/6\/88<\/p>\n
applies only in respect of the latter one. Viewed in this manner, I<\/p>\n
am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
that there is anything contradictory in between Exts.P1 and P2<\/p>\n
nor hold that Ext.P2 should govern the field.      Therefore, that<\/p>\n
OP No.5217\/2002 & WP(C) No.12014\/04<\/p>\n
                                :7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
contention also has to be rejected<\/p>\n
      10. As far as the challenge against Clause (c) of Ext.P1 GO<\/p>\n
(P) No.219\/88\/GAD dated 17\/6\/88 is concerned, PSC has<\/p>\n
explained in the counter affidavit, the reasons which made the<\/p>\n
Government to provide for such seniority to the employees who<\/p>\n
are elder in age. Nothing has been placed on record to conclude<\/p>\n
that the said reasoning given by the PSC in its counter affidavit is<\/p>\n
incorrect or erroneous. Therefore, I see no merit in these<\/p>\n
petitions. These petitions are devoid of merit and are rejected.<\/p>\n
      OP No.5217\/2002 and WP(C) No.12014\/04 are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                      ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
\nRp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 5217 of 2002(U) 1. STANLY GEORGE A., ASSISTANT, … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 3. SHRI.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI.S., 4. SHRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, SECTION […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nStanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-15T20:11:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-15T20:11:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1401,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-15T20:11:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-15T20:11:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-15T20:11:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010"},"wordCount":1401,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010","name":"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-15T20:11:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-george-a-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stanly George A. vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 7 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72514","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72514"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72514\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}