Ramesh Ramakrishnan v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Kerala State Film Development Corporation Ltd. and N. Harikumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 18791 of 2014 (Y)** ## **-------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : --------------------------** **RAMESH RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, 'KARUNYA', SVLRA-29, SREEVILAS LANE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.** **2. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHALACHITRA KALABHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **3. N.HARIKUMAR, SOUND ENGINEER, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHALACHITRA KALABHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C R2 & R3 BY SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **WP(C).No. 18791 of 2014 (Y) ------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** - **P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P2 COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P3 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE AND THE DECLARATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT SPECIFIED IN EXT.P1.** - **P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATING DATED 30.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.06.2014 SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT.** - **P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 18791 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] December, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to proceed with the selection as per Exhibit P1 notification and to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of Sound Engineer in the 2[nd] respondent Corporation. It is submitted that Exhibit P1 notification provided that candidates should have experience of five years as an independent Sound Recordist in a Film Studio of repute. It is stated that the 1[st] respondent had required the petitioner to produce the said certificate for verification by the 2[nd] respondent employer. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had been served with Exhibit P7 reply dated 1.7.2014 on Exhibit P6 query filed under the Right to Information Act stating that the experience certificate of the petitioner was returned by the 2[nd] respondent to the 1[st] respondent without counter signature due to non-eligibility, on 6.2.2014. Thereafter, steps were taken to re-notify the post which has been interdicted by this Court by interim order dated 22.7.2014. The petitioner contends that the rejection of his 2 _**WP(C).18791/14**_ application on the ground that the experience certificate did not meet the requirements of the notification is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent Corporation as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 contending that Exhibit P1 notification specifically contained a condition that the qualification of experience should be one gained from a Film Studio of repute. It is stated that the experience certificate of the petitioner was from a television channel, Amrita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which is not a Film Studio. In the above view of the matter, it is contended that there was no illegality in the rejection of the petitioner's application. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that going by the definition of 'cinematograph' as contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures is a cinematograph and 'film' means a 'cinematograph film'. Therefore in the present context, there is no distinction between a Film Studio and a Television Studio as regards recording of sound or film. It is further contended that the _**WP(C).18791/14**_ 3 action of the 1[st] respondent in having referred the experience certificate of the petitioner to the 2[nd] respondent for verification was completely without jurisdiction and was _ultra vires ._ The learned Senior Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would, on the other hand, contend that the petitioner's experience certificate does not meet the requirement of the specific condition in the notification. In view of the technical nature of the experience needed, the Public Service Commission had referred the question to the employer which is perfectly legal and valid. There is no challenge against the action of the PSC or to Exhibit P5. In view of the notification, the petitioner is not qualified and since the post is remaining vacant, the 2[nd] respondent had renotified it. There is no legal infirmity in any of the actions of the respondents, it is contended. 4. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had been required by the 1[st] respondent as per Exhibit P5 to submit for a verification of his experience certificate by the committee constituted by the 2[nd] respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted his experience certificate for such scrutiny by the _**WP(C).18791/14**_ 4 committee. There is also no challenge raised in this writ petition as against Exhibit P5. In the above view of the matter, this Court cannot examine the question of competence of the 2[nd] respondent to consider the veracity or otherwise of the qualification of the petitioner. 5. As regards the contention of the petitioner that his experience is equivalent to or virtually the same as what is required in Exhibit P1 notification also, I am of the opinion that it is not for this Court to consider the said contention in view of the specific prescription contained in Exhibit P1 notification. It appears from Exhibit P7 that the petitioner's experience certificate has not been accepted by the 2[nd] respondent on the ground that his experience is not one gained in a Film Studio. The petitioner relies on a decision of the Apex Court in _**Laxmi Video**_ _**Theatres Mangala Talkies Maha Laxmi Video Sangam Video Talkies Samrat Video Parlour v. State of Haryana**_ [AIR 1993 SC 2328] to contend that in view of the definition clause contained in Sections 2(c) and 2(dd) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures would answer the definition of _**WP(C).18791/14**_ 5 'cinematograph'. It is, therefore, contended that the technology in use at present in recording of moving pictures in Film Studios and television studios being identical, there is no distinction between the experience gained in Film Studio and television studio. These are the aspects which, according to me, have to gain the attention of the employer or the framer of the qualification. It is not for this Court to decide, at the first instance, whether the petitioner is qualified in terms of the service rules or regulations in question to be appointed to the post of Sound Recordist in the 2[nd] respondent. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to take up and consider the claim raised by the petitioner with regard to the equivalency of the petitioner's qualification and to take a final decision thereon within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, file a representation producing all relevant documents which he seeks to rely on before the 2[nd] respondent. Further steps for renotification of the posts shall be taken by the 1[st] respondent 6 _**WP(C).18791/14**_ only after orders are passed by the 2[nd] respondent as directed above. If the qualification possessed by the petitioner is found to be sufficient by the 2[nd] respondent, the petitioner will also be permitted to participate in the selection process without reference to his age as on the date of such notification. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** _vgs16/12_