Muhammed Nizar K vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Nizar K vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2011

Bench: S.Siri Jagan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4330 of 2011(M)


1. MUHAMMED NIZAR K., MUSTHAFA MANZIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

3. THE ADDITIONAL FACTORY INSPECTOR GR.II,

4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :22/02/2011

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C)No. 4330 of 2011
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a candidate who has applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in response to a notification inviting applications published by the Kerala Public Service Commission. One of the qualifications required is experience in a workshop. The petitioner had experience in a workshop during the period from 07.10.2002 to 29.11.2003. But that workshop has been closed down subsequently. The petitioner obtained Ext.P3 experience certificate from the proprietor of the workshop, who is still available. But as per the requirements of the P.S.C. that experience certificate has to be attested by the jurisdictional Labour Officer-the 4th respondent herein or the jurisdictional Factory Inspector who is 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that on the ground that the workshop is no longer in W.P.(C)No. 4330 of 2011 -2- existence, the respondents 3 & 4 are refusing to countersign the experience certificate. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 certificate of approval issued by the Government of Kerala for the workshop in which the petitioner had worked and Ex.P9 muster roll, would show that the petitioner had actually worked in that workshop during the said period. It is pointed out that in Ext.P3 form of certificate what the attesting officer has to certify is that the petitioner had actually worked or is working in the workshop. The petitioner would contend that the fact that the workshop has ceased to function now is no ground to refuse to countersign the experience certificate, since the petitioner had gained the experience from the said workshop. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

"i) to declare that the closure of a workshop should not disentitle the person who rendered experience from the workshop like the petitioner to get a certificate of experience for the purpose of appointment in public service;

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to counter sign the form of certificate of experience produced by the petitioner so as to enable the W.P.(C)No. 4330 of 2011 -3- petitioner to produce the same before the 2nd respondent in time;

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accept the experience certificate produced by the petitioner;"

I have heard the learned standing counsel for the P.S.C. as well as the learned Government Pleader. The mere fact that the workshop is now closed is no ground for not countersigning the experience certificate. Either the 3rd respondent or the 4th respondent has a duty to conduct enquires with the proprietor of the workshop and others as to whether the petitioner had actually worked in the said workshop by inspecting the documents available in support of the contentions of the petitioner and if the respondents 3 & 4 are satisfied that the petitioner had in fact worked in the workshop in question for the period in question, they have a duty to countersign the experience certificate. Accordingly, I direct the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of Ext.P3 certificate of experience issued by the proprietor of the workshop in question and if he is satisfied that the petitioner had in fact W.P.(C)No. 4330 of 2011 -4- worked for the period in that workshop, notwithstanding the fact that the workshop is no longer in existence, the 4th respondent shall countersign the experience certificate. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner produces the countersigned experience certificate before the 2nd respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment the P.S.C. shall accept the same as one produced in time.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court