SANTHOSH, S/O. KARUPPAN and others v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/2ND ASHADHA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 12935 of 2014 (N)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **----------------------** ## **1. SANTHOSH,** - **S/O. KARUPPAN, ANGATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KODINJI, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. VINOD KUMAR,** - **S/O. K.T.RAMAN, PATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMANTHATTA, KIZHATUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. BABU,** - **S/O. APOOTTY, MANNARAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMURI P.O. KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE.** **4. JAYAPRAKASH T.G.** - **S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, THOTTANATH, KOORACHUND, KOZHIKODE, ATHIYODI.** ## **5. SHAILU T.K.** - **S/O. RAGHAVAN, THOOVAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE.** ## **6. JINESH KUMAR M.,** - **S/O. MOHANAN PILLAI, JINESH BHAVAN, AGASTIACODE, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **7. RAJESH KUMAR K.M. S/O. K.MADHAVAN NAIR, KOLATHU HOUSE, CHOVVERAKODE, KAKKARA P.O., M.M.BAZAR, KANNUR.** ## **8. LAKSHMANAN M.,** - **S/O. KUNHAMBU, HOSDURG KADAPPURAM, PUTHOYAVALAPPU, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.** ## **9. BIJU K.K.,** - **S/O. KRISHNAN, THARAVATTATHU HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O., NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE.** **PJ** **...2/-** **..2..** **WP(C).No. 12935 of 2014 (N)** **----------------------------------------** ## **10. SURESH KUMAR P.G.** **S/O. GOPI P.R., PAZHANILATHU, MEVADA P.O. KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **2. THE SECRETARY,** - **KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** ## **3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,** - **FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-695 004.** **R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R3 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **WP(C).No. 12935 of 2014 (N) ----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** - **P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.14.5.2008 IN CATEGORY NO.197/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P2 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-128331.** - **P2(A): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-123837.** - **P2(B): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-124399.** - **P2(C): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-124467.** - **P2(D): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-124763.** - **P2(E): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-121478.** - **P2(F): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 7TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-125071.** - **P2(G): COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTER NO.S-125335.** - **P3 TO P3(B): COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR PRODUCTION OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE.** - **P4 : COPY OF SPECIMEN FORM OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH EXT.P3 SERIES.** - **P5 TO P5(1): COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO EXT.P3 SERIES.** - **P6 : COPY OF THE PROBABILITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE P/L NO.127/2012 DTD.30.11.2012.** - **P7: COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS FOR PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES FOR VERIFICATION.** - **P8 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ERV(3)4464/2010/EW DTD.8.11.2013 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **PJ** **...3/-** **..3..** ## **WP(C).No. 12935 of 2014 (N)** ## **----------------------------------------** - **P9 : COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.177/14/ERV.** - **P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.IDS.II(4)/5406/14 G.V. DTD.12.5.2014.** - **P11: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.IDS.II(4)/5404/14 G.V. DTD.5.5.2014.** - **P12: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.P/L NO.115/2012 CATEGORY NO.124/2010 DATED 31/10/12** - **P13: COPY OF THE LIST OF REJECTED CANDIDATES WITH REGISTER NUMBER AND REASON FOR REJECTION.** - **P14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.I.D.S.II(I) APPEAL/6166/14/GW DATED 29/5/14** - **P15: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.1447 ISSUED FROM THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KANJANGAD.** - **P16: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PERMANENT REGISTRATION ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KASARAGOD DATED 27/1/94.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------WP(C).NO. 12935 of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2014 ## JUDGMENT Petitioners are candidates applied for selection to the post of Painter Gr. II in the 3[rd] respondent Corporation. The 1[st] respondent conducted selection process and prepared Ext.P9 rank list. The selection process includes written test (OMR test) and certificate verification. On the basis of inclusion of petitioners' name in Ext.P6 probability list, they were directed to produce original certificates for verification. But their names were not included in the rank list, eventhough no objection was raised at the time of verification of the certificates. Ext.P13 is a list of rejected candidates issued by the 1[st] respondent commission. It indicates that, candidature of the petitioners were rejected for various reasons. It is challenging the rejection of candidature and the non inclusion of names of the petitioners in the rank list, this writ petition is filed. 2. With respect to petitioners 2, 3,4, and 9 the reason for WP(C). 12935 /2014 2 rejection of candidature mentioned in Ext.P13 is that the experience certificate produced by them shows only daily wage engagement. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is mentioned that, the notification clearly stipulated all the requisite details to be mentioned in the experience certificate. Candidates who failed to produce the experience certificate with all the requisite details in accordance with the conditions incorporated in the notification cannot be accepted. Experience certificate produced by candidates working as apprentices, trainees and casual labourers will not satisfy the requirement. Hence rejection of candidature for the reason is legal and valid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had pointed out that, the question remains now settled through a Division Bench decision of this court in **Sulochana A.C. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (2014 (2) ILR 506).** Referring to Rule 10(ab) of the KS and SSR 1958, this court held that, unless WP(C). 12935 /2014 3 otherwise specified through any special rules, if qualification of experience is prescribed for any post, it shall be gained by the candidates on temporary or regular appointment in a capacity other than paid or unpaid apprentices, trainees and casual labourers. Therefore, experience gained by persons on temporary or regular appointment, otherwise than in the capacity of paid or unpaid apprentices, trainees and casual labourers, are eligible to be reckoned as experience gained for the purpose of the Rule. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 attempted to distinguish the said decision contending that on facts the experience certificate considered in the said case was issued from the very same establishment to which the selection is conducted, whereas in the present case the experience certificate as daily wage basis was produced from other private establishments. Going by dictum contained in the ruling, this court do not find any such distinction. On the other hand Rule WP(C). 12935 /2014 4 10(ab) is clearly interpreted on the basis of its provisions which only specifically excluded apprentices, trainees and casual labourers. In the case of the petitioners 2,3, 4 and 9, the experience certificates produced by them would indicate that they were working in the respective establishments on daily wage basis. Engagement on daily wage basis can be considered only as temporary, and not as an apprentice, trainee or casual labourer. Hence this court is of the opinion that rejection of the candidature with respect to those petitioners are not sustainable. 5. With respect to 8[th] petitioner the reason for rejection of the candidature mentioned in Ext.P13 is that “experience certificate incomplete”. Contention of the petitioner is that he had produced experience certificate as per Ext.P5 which indicates that the petitioner was the proprietor of the establishment and he was working as Painter. In the certificate it is mentioned that he was employed from 1.1.1999 to 7.7.12 in the said establishment as the proprietor. Experience certificate was counter signed by WP(C). 12935 /2014 5 the Assistant Labour Officer having jurisdiction in the area. Petitioner had produced Exts.P15, P16 which will show that the unit of the said petitioner was having registration from the industries department as well as labour department. 6. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the 8[th] petitioner had produced experience certificate from a private establishment which was found not acceptable as the relevant details of nature of duty and wages are not stated. It is evident that the nature of duty and experience are specifically mentioned in the experience certificate as Painter. Since the petitioner was working in his own establishment, wages drawn is not specifically shown in the certificate. It is evident that the notification does not insist upon that the experience certificate should be produced showing specifically about the wages. On the other hand it insists that experience certificates should be produced to prove experience in the field concerned. If a person had worked as Painter in his own establishment which is a registered small scale WP(C). 12935 /2014 6 industry, the experience gained by conducting such a unit cannot be discarded. The experience certificate produced in this regard is liable to be accepted, since it is not rejected on the basis of any other defect. Hence this court is of the opinion that the rejection of candidature with respect to the petitioner No.8 also cannot be sustained. 7. With respect to petitioners 5 and 7 it is stated in the counter affidavit that they have not secured the requisite cut off marks in the selection. Hence they are not eligible to be included in the rank list. The above situation is not disputed by the petitioners. Further it is conceded that the experience certificate produced by the first petitioner is only that of apprenticeship, which cannot be accepted . With respect to petitioners 6 and 10 they have also produced experience certificates only as casual labourers. Hence the experience certificate produced by them cannot be accepted. 8. Under the above mentioned circumstances this writ WP(C). 12935 /2014 7 petition is allowed with respect to petitioners 2,3,4,8 and 9. The respondents are directed to include their names in the respective ranking position in Ext.P9 list and to issue advice for appointment of them as Painter Grade II in the 3[rd] respondent Corporation in accordance with their turn on the basis of the rules of reservation. Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition stands dismissed with respect to petitioners 1,5,6,7 and 10. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/ WP(C). 12935 /2014 8