Kerala High Court
Deepa N.Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934
OP(KAT).No. 1764 of 2012 (Z)
----------------------------
IN OA.298/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
=================
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DEEPA N.KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. A.SANTHOSH,
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (HINDI) GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
VELLANADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESIDING AT 'REVATHY', TC NO.19/1957-1, KRRA 33A
KESAVADEV ROAD, MUDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPPURA PO
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
4. HICKY DEVADAS,
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER JUNIOR
GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUNNALA
KOLLAM 689 706.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SD
OP(KAT) NO. 1764/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.298/2012.
ANNEXURE-A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA
GAZETTE DATED 15-9-2010.
ANNEXURE-A2- TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST EFFECTIVE FROM 18-1-2012
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE-A3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) 88 NO.2004/H.EDN. DATED
2-8-2004 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE-A4 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO.115/2008/H.EDN.
DATED 27.9.2008 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED
3-10-2008.
ANNEXURE-A5- TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 10-9-2008.
ANNEXURE-A6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7-2-2012 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6-3-2012 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.298/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
SD
MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J
&
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------
OP(KAT).No. 1764 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was before Kerala Administrative Tribunal not only challenging Exhibit A1 notification, but also selection of the party respondent herein, who said to have obtained more marks than the present petitioner, i.e., 92 marks, whereas the petitioner obtained 70 marks.
3. What we could notice from the materials and the submissions is, as early as 208 applications were called for promotion, i.e., promotion by transfer giving the last date as 15.10.2008 indicating certain terms and conditions required for the application. However, there were no candidates, who had required qualification. Therefore, they all became No Candidate Available (NCA) vacancies pertaining to Ezhava and Scheduled OP(KAT).1764/12 2 Caste communities. Subsequently, by virtue of 2010 notification, applications were called for, wherein the applicants from open market were also allowed to appear for the interview. The ranking was based on the percentage of marks obtained in the required qualification + interview marks. As stated above, the party respondent got 22 marks more than the present petitioner. After appearing for the interview applying in pursuance of 2010 notification, now it is not open to the petitioner to contend that it ought to have been only for appointment by transfer and not for open market candidates. As the second notification of 2010 was in pursuance of No Candidates Available vacancies that arose on account of non availability of candidates in 2008, they ought not to have considered 2008 notification and qualification required for 2010. Therefore, there was no justification in the contentions of the petitioner before Tribunal. Even otherwise, she was allowed to take part in the interview and if she was better than the open market candidate, there was no impediment for her to get the appointment. As merit was considered in the second notification interview, the petitioner was not successful and she could not ask for such benefit in pursuance of 2008 notification as she was not OP(KAT).1764/12 3 qualified at that time. Therefore, we are of the opinion, none of the grounds raised herein can be accepted.
Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs08.06