High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2008-08-04Disposed of

Liji Pothen v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others

Case / Petition Number:RP.No.865/08 in W.A.No.591/2004 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: J.B. Koshy
K.T. Sankaran
Judgment Date: 2008-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: Delay condoned. The review petition is disposed of. The court upheld that the petitioners’ three-year Diploma satisfies the prescribed qualification in light of Jyothy K.K. and Partha Radha, and that the rights of those already advised should be protected per Jyothy K.K.’s principle that subsequent judgments cannot retroactively affect non-parties to those decisions. The PSC’s actions are confirmed to the extent they align with the cited Supreme Court decisions; the petition is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Liji Pothen

Respondents

K.P. Venugopal
Binu V.
Ajith S.S.
Geetha S.
K.B. Santhosh Kumar
Beenu Kumari P.G.
Dipunath V.S.
Usha Kumari P.S.
Kerala Public Service Commission
Jyothi Vidhyadhar an
Chakran S.
Dines.G.
Abdul Gafoor P.H.
Sreeraj V.
Jayakrishnan P.
Mini.T.
Harsha Kumar.S.
Riyadh A.
S. Biju
Been Rahiman
Anitha.L.
Aji.S.S.
Saji.V.
Raju Kochuvila Puthen Veedu
Letha A.S.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Rajasekharan Nayar

Counsels for Respondents

• Alexander Thomas, S.C., KPSC
• B. Gopakumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a review petition arising from WA 591/2004 concerning recruitment by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for engineering posts. The petitioners challenged an unduly rejected short-listing of their applications on the ground that they possessed a three-year engineering diploma rather than the two-year certificate required by the notification. They contended that the diploma should be treated as equivalent to the certificate, and relied on Supreme Court guidance in Jyothy K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission (JT 2002 Suppl (1) SC 85) and Partha Radha v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) ILR Kerala 53) to claim eligibility and inclusion in the rank list, with advisory prospects when vacancies arose. Interim orders dated 17.2.2005 had directed that those with the prescribed qualification be included in the rank list and advised accordingly. The respondents filed statements, and the court noted that the petitioners had the requisite qualification in view of the three-year diploma, contrary to the initial interpretation of the notification. A key issue was whether subsequent judgments could erode rights of those already advised who were not parties to Jyothy’s case. The High Court concluded that the rights of the review petitioner should not be affected by later judgments and that the PSC’s actions were consistent with the cited Supreme Court decision. The petition was disposed of with delay condoned and directions to proceed in accordance with the rank list established earlier.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that their three-year Engineering Diploma should be treated as equivalent to the two-year Certificate course prescribed in the notification; relying on Jyothy K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Partha Radha v. State of Kerala, they argued for inclusion in the rank list and for advising when vacancies arose after interim arrangements. They asserted that the diploma-based qualification meets the notified requirement and that their rights, having pursued eligible qualifications, should be protected.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that recruitment qualifications were governed strictly by the notification (two-year Certificate course). They maintained that the rights of those advised under earlier orders should be respected even if subsequent judgments altered the interpretation of qualifications; they contended that the petition could not overturn settled rank-list adoptions and that eligibility should be determined by the notified standard.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jyothy K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission	JT 2002 Suppl (1) SC 85	Positive	Cited as authority for including diploma holders and protecting rights of those already advised; used to support equivalence and non-retroactivity for non-parties.
Partha Radha v. State of Kerala	2000 (3) ILR Kerala 53	Positive	Cited to support the equivalence of qualifications (diploma vs certificate) for recruitment and implementation consistent with petitioners’ claims.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Liji Pothen v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930** **RP.No. 865 of 2008(E) IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004** **--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.591/2004** **....................** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER:** **----------------------------------** **LIJI POTHEN, W/O.K.V.KURIAN, KOTTARATHIL, PAMBADY, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR** **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19 & 20 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 17:** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **1. K.P.VENUGOPAL, VENU NIVAS, THONNALLUR, PANDALAM.** **2. BINU.V., PUTHEN BUNGALOW, EDANADU P.O POYYAPPALLY (VIA), KOLLAM.** **3. AJITH S.S., PRATHIBHA, EDAVANASSERY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM.** **4. GEETHA.S., KIZHAKKIDATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KANDANCHIRA, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM.** **5. K.B.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SYLAVILASAM, ANAKOTTOOR P.O., EZHUKONE (VIA), KOLLAM.** **6. BEENU KUMARI P.G., MURALI SADANAM, PEEZHOORKONAM, EZHUKONE P.O.** **7. DIPUNATH V.S., V.S.MANDIRAM, CLAPPANA NORTH, CLAPPANA.P.O KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN 690 525.** **8. USHA KUMARI P.S., USHA BHAVAN, THAZHATHU VADAKKU PO. ENCHU (VIA) KOLLAM.** **R.P.865/08** **9. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **10. JYOTHI VIDHYADHARAN, JYOTHI NIVAS, WEMENI, MUNDROTHURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM-6.** **11. CHAKRAN.S., MUTTATHURA VEEDU, KALAMCHAL P.O., VAMANAPURAM (VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **12. DINES.G., DINESH BHAVAN, PULLUTHOTTAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O., ALUMCODE (VIA), ATTINGAL.** **13. ABDUL GAFOOR P.H., KAKKAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, THONNALLUR, PANDALAM P.O.** **14. SREERAJ V., SREEVILASOM, NATTAYAM P.O POOYPPALLY (VIA), KOLLAM.** **15. JAYAKRISHNAN P., CHEMPARA VEEDU, THAZHAM, CHATHANNUR P.O., KOLLAM.** **16. MINI.T., CHURUVILA KADAYIL VEEDU, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM.** **17. HARSHA KUMAR.S., LAL BHAVANAM, ADUTHALA P.O., KARAMCODU, KOLLAM.** **18. RIYADH A., PADINJAREPANACHIVILA, NEAR M.N.JUNCTION, PANDALAM.** **19. S.BIJU, KUNNUMPUZHATHU, KALLUMTHAZHAM PO KOLLAM.** **20. BEEN RAHIMAN, PUTHENTHOPPIL, S.R.P. MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.** **21. ANITHA.L., PANAVILA PADINJATTATHIL, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 506.** **22. AJI.S.S., ILAYIL, KUZHIMUKKU, ATTINGAL.** **23. SAJI.V., VILAYIL VEEDU, KOTTUKUNNAM P.O., VAMANAPURAM (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **24. RAJU KOCHUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAKKANADU P.O., KOLLAM 691 505.** ## **R.P.865/08** **25. LETHA A.S., CHACHIRAYIL HOUSE, POOZHIKAL P.O., KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 504.** **BY ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C., KPSC** **ADV.SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **J.B.KOSHY & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ.** **------------------------------C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) ----------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2008** ## **O R D E R** ## **KOSHY,J.** ## C.M.APPLN.NO.356/2008 IN R.P.NO.865/2008 For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay is condoned. ## R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 Appellants approached this Court stating that their applications were unduly rejected, even though they were short listed, because of lack of prescribed qualification in the notification. Prescribed qualification in the notification is two years Certificate course in Engineering. The appellants were having three years Diploma course in Engineering. Based on 2 C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) the Supreme Court decision in **Jyothy K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission (JT 2002 Suppl (1) SC 85) and Partha Radha v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) ILR Kerala 53),** they were having the prescribed qualification. It was directed by interim order dated 17.2.2005, that appellants who were having prescribed qualification should be included in the rank list and should be advised when their time arise. Thereafter, the PSC was asked to file a statement. Appellants were included in the rank list as they were having sufficient qualification. The above action of the PSC is confirmed with the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyothy's case (supra) and when order was passed in the writ appeal. Thereafter, when the final order was passed, the Division Bench directed to make advices according to the rank list. The appellants were not considered earlier only on the contention that they were not having prescribed qualification. But on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, this Court found that they were having qualification as they were having three years Diploma 3 C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) course in Engineering instead of two years Certificate course in Engineering. The rights of the review petitioner is not affected. But it was held by the Supreme Court in Jyothy's case (supra) that subsequent judgment will not affect the right of the already advised candidates who are not parties to the case. Hence, if the review petitioner was given advice earlier to the judgment of the writ appeal, in one of the existing vacancies, he should be provided and should be given advice and subsequent change in the rank list will not affect the rights of the petitioner who was already advised. With the above observations, this review petition is disposed of. ## **J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE** ## **K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE** prp C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) 4 ## **J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------------------** **M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()** **---------------------------------------------------------** **J U D G M E N T** **---------------------------------------------------------** **4[th] August, 2008**