Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Basil Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2024 cites

Ajith K. vs Aneesh K.S. on 21 August, 2019

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the contentions taken in the amended writ petition, places reliance on Exts.P37 and P38 judgments passed by this Court as well as the judgments in Ajith K. and others v. Aneesh K.S. and others [2019 KHC 6830], Janardanan K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2008 (3) KHC 299], Sudhir Singh v. State of U.P. [2023 KHC Online 6964], Muhammed Naeem v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 565] and W.P.I.L. Ltd, Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 KHC 449]. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the petitioner alone was qualified and the 5 th respondent committed an error in appointing the 6th respondent who was not qualified. Since the qualification was prescribed and the 6th respondent lacks the same, the petitioner, who has the qualification, ought to have been appointed. It is also submitted that as of 18.01.2022, the last date of application, the petitioner alone was qualified. The Statement in the affidavit filed by the Government that the 6th respondent was appointed during the pendency of Ext.P25 Government Order dated 30.7.2022 cannot be accepted as the date of appointment cannot have any relevance, much less when the question of eligibility is in issue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

W.P.I.L. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 February, 2005

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the contentions taken in the amended writ petition, places reliance on Exts.P37 and P38 judgments passed by this Court as well as the judgments in Ajith K. and others v. Aneesh K.S. and others [2019 KHC 6830], Janardanan K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2008 (3) KHC 299], Sudhir Singh v. State of U.P. [2023 KHC Online 6964], Muhammed Naeem v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 565] and W.P.I.L. Ltd, Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 KHC 449]. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the petitioner alone was qualified and the 5 th respondent committed an error in appointing the 6th respondent who was not qualified. Since the qualification was prescribed and the 6th respondent lacks the same, the petitioner, who has the qualification, ought to have been appointed. It is also submitted that as of 18.01.2022, the last date of application, the petitioner alone was qualified. The Statement in the affidavit filed by the Government that the 6th respondent was appointed during the pendency of Ext.P25 Government Order dated 30.7.2022 cannot be accepted as the date of appointment cannot have any relevance, much less when the question of eligibility is in issue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Dharun K vs Shino M. Gopal on 15 September, 2020

This principle was followed by this Court in the judgment reported in Dharun's case (supra) while reversing the decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal that held that the inclusion of engineering graduates in a selection process for the post of Tradesman was wrong. Interpreting Rule 10(a)(ii), it was stated as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudhir Singh vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2023

He relies on the decision in Sudhir Singh v. State of U.P. [2023 KHC Online 6964] to contend that the basic question on eligibility has to be determined based on the cut-off date/the point of time mentioned in the date of notification itself unless extended by the authority W.P(C) No.30350/23 10 concerned. Ext.P25 Government Order dated 30.07.2022 issued by the Higher Education Department, stated that the B.Tech certificates awarded by various Universities in Kerala are higher qualification to the Diploma Certificates and ITI/ITC/KGCE/KGTE/NAC/NTC Electrical/Wireman/ Electrical Engineering Certificates in the respective branches and also the branches in which Universities in Kerala had issued equivalency certificates, in terms of eligibility criteria, duration of the course, contents covered and knowledge level acquired. The Government Order was issued upon receiving representation from certain persons and also from the Registrar, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, the University under which all the Engineering Colleges and other technical institutions are affiliated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

K.Janardhanan Kidavu vs The State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2009

The judgments relied on by the Senior Counsel in Janardhanan K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2008 (3) KHC 299] also found that the degree in that case was not in the same faculty and therefore, a degree will not pre-suppose the acquisition of an ITI certificate. It is also relevant to note that the qualification fixed for Tradesman by the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University on 23.05.2023 mandates a degree for Tradesman, namely a graduate degree or diploma or National Trade Certificate. True that, this came after the notification in question, but it is certainly an indication. None of the government orders are challenged in the writ petition.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - K N Nair - Full Document

Muhammed Naeem.V.T vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2023

15. It is also to be noted in the instant case that the Public Service Commission had, through its decision taken on 23.01.2023, Ext.P26, decided not to implement the order dated 17.01.2023 by stating that it will not apply to notifications issued before the said date. In any view of the matter, as the qualification of a B.Tech degree is a qualification for the superior posts under the special rules, it cannot be said that the graduation is not in the same faculty. It is also to be noticed that Ext.P37 judgment of the Division Bench reported in Muhammed Naeem v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 565] holding that a National Trade Certificate is not a lower qualification of degree or diploma in engineering and acquisition of such a degree or diploma does not pre-suppose the acquisition of National Trade Certificate is under challenge before the Supreme Court and the operation of the judgment stayed.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document
1