Skip to content


Jyothikumar.D. Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantJyothikumar.D.
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....(z) --------------------------- against the order/judgment in oa20462013 of kerala administrativetribunal, thiruvananthapuram dated0609-2013 petitioner(s): ----------------------- jyothikumar.d., aged34years, s/o. dharmapalan, muppathil, kattil market, kumarapuram, haripad, alappuzha- 688 001. by adv. sri.kaleeswaram raj respondent(s): -------------------------- 1. state of kerala, rep. by secretary to government, department of technical education, secretariat,thiruvananthapuram-695 001.2. the director of technical education, thiruvananthapuram-695 033.3. kerala public service commission, rep. by the secretary, kerala public service commission, pattom, thiruvananthapuram-695 004. r1 & r2 by sr. government pleader sri.noble mathew. r3 by sri.p.c.sasidharan, sc, kpsc this op kerala.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE13H DAY OF JANUARY201423RD POUSHA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 15 of 2014 (Z) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OA20462013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED0609-2013 PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JYOTHIKUMAR.D., AGED34YEARS, S/O. DHARMAPALAN, MUPPATHIL, KATTIL MARKET, KUMARAPURAM, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW. R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 15 of 2014 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED69.2013 IN OA204613 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA204613 TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES. ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED306.2010. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED23.2013 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED87.2013 ISSUED BY THE PSC. ANNEXURE A4(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A4. ANNEXURE A5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED227.2013 FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED297.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE PSC. ANNEXURE A7: COPY OF THE MSC COMPUTER SCIENCE DEGREE ALONG WITH MARK LIST PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A8: COPY OF THE MBA DEGREE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A9: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE PSC FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE. ANNEXURE A10: COPY OF THE AICTE NORMS/NOTIFICATION DATED221.2010. ANNEXURE A11: COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE A12: COPY OF GO (MS)NO.213/91/H.EDN DATED2211.1991. ANNEXURE A13: COPY OF THE UGC NET CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

----------------------------------------------------- O.P.(KAT) No.15 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2014

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

The petitioner does not possess any of the qualifications enumerated in the notification published by the Public Service Commission. He attempted to demonstrate before the Tribunal that he has a qualification which could be treated as equivalent to MCA Degree. The Tribunal could not accept that in view of the binding Full Bench decision of this Court in Suma v. K.P.S.C. [2011 (1) KLT1 which clearly laid down that as long as no equivalent qualification is prescribed, the candidate should have the prescribed/notified qualification. The Special Rules or the PSC notifications did not provide for acceptance of any equivalent qualifications. Hence, there is no jurisdictional error or illegality in the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, this original petition fails, and the same is dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE AV


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //