Kerala High Court
Shaina T.V vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 March, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 37796 of 2017
PETITIONER:
SHAINA T.V
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O.KARUNAKARAN, MANAIKKAL HOUSE, MADAYIKAVU, VANNANTHADAM,
P.O.PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670303.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SMT.D.N.NISHANI
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR
SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
CIRCLE-1, CHANDROTH COMPLEX, KANNUR-670001.
3 THE KERALA DINESH BEEDI WORKERS CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
NO.S.INDC61
DINESH BHAVAN, KANNUR-670001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),KANNUR-670002.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SRI.C.A.ANOOP
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.REKHA C. NAIR-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 37796 of 2017
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she applied to the Post of 'Data Entry Operator' in the services of the District Co-operative Bank, Palakkad, through the Public Service Commission. She says that however, the Public Service Commission, through Ext.P3, rejected her application because she had not produced her experience certificate duly attested by the 2 nd respondent - Assistant Labour Officer, as is required under the Rules and therefore, that she approached the 2 nd respondent, for countersigning her experience certificate, through Ext.P4 representation; but that the same was not considered and that the said Authority directed the petitioner to produce the wage Register, Muster Roll, Service Record etc. from the 3 rd respondent - Society to prove that she worked with them. The petitioner says that subsequently, the 2nd respondent refused to grant her the requisite experience certificate merely because the 3rd respondent did not produce the afore mentioned documents before him. She therefore, prays that the first respondent - Kerala Public Service Commission be directed to consider her candidature also. WP(C).No. 37796 of 2017 3
2. Even though, I hear the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Vidhya Kuriakose, the fact remains that the process involved in this case was of the year 2017 and I am told by the learned standing counsel for the PSC that the Rank List has now expired and that several persons have been appointed to the various vacancies. Obviously, therefore, the exercise as now attempted by the petitioner through this writ petition has now become completely unnecessary and redundant, since even if I am to grant any reliefs in this case, the petitioner cannot be directed to be appointed to a vacancy, the process of which expired long ago.
3. In the afore circumstances, leaving liberty to the petitioner to apply for the same post as and when a fresh notification is issued the PSC and without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of any rival parties, thus leaving it all open, I close this writ petition without any further orders.
4. I make it clear, that if a fresh notification is issued by the PSC, and the petitioner desires to apply for the same, WP(C).No. 37796 of 2017 4 she will be at liberty to apply for and obtain the necessary experience certificate from the concerned Authorities in terms of law untrammeled by these proceedings.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No. 37796 of 2017
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER
REGISTERED WITH THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BY ONE TIME REGISTRATION (OTR) THROUGH ONLINE.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ATTESTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE NOTE OF REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/07/2017.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/07/2017.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.8.2017 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.