Kerala High Court
Kerala State Film Development & ... vs Kerala State Public Service Commission on 14 March, 2017
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940
RP.No. 325 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 20179/2014, DATED 14-03-2017
----------
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C) :
1 KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT & CORPORATION LTD
CHALCHITHRA KALABHAVAN,
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 THE SUB COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINIZING AND COUNTERSIGNING
EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
CHALCHITHRA KALABHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
BY SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADV. SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH, S.C
RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) :
1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
TULASI HILLS, PATTAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2. V.N.PRADEEP KUMAR @ PRADEEP NAIR,
S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR,
MANI MANDIR, KUMARANELLOOR,
KOTTAYAM - 686 016.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C
R2 BY ADVS. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
16.07.2018
Devan Ramachandran, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.No.325 of 2018 in
W.P.(C)No.20179 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2018
ORDER
In the judgment sought to be reviewed, in paragraph 3, I had recorded the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sudhi Vasudevan, that the review petitioners intend to issue a fresh notification under the aegis of the Public Service Commission. This review petition has been filed asserting that even though such a submission was made at the Bar, what was intended was only that a fresh notification will be issued with or without the concurrence of the PSC, as the case may be.
2. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Corporation has a contention that the filling up of the posts in question does not require the concurrence of the RP 325/18 2 PSC. Of course, I notice that the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC has a contention quite to the contrary and he asserts that such concurrence is necessary.
3. Whatever be the nature of the syllogistical contentions between the parties, since I have only recorded the submission of the learned Senior Counsel in paragraph 3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, that the Corporation will issue a fresh notification under the aegis of the PSC, I deem it appropriate to clarify that what was recorded by me was only the submission and that I have not entered into any finding. It will be up to the Corporation to fill up the vacancies in terms of law with or without the concurrence of the PSC, as the law may mandate and it will be open to the PSC to raise all contentions, if their concurrence is not sought and if, according to them, such concurrence is mandatory. RP 325/18 3
With these observations, this review petition is closed.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv