IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 388 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- TIPSY MATHEW, W/O. MANU, AGED 30 YEARS, MUNDECKAL HOUSE, 431 (7/64), 9 KAIPUZHA SOUTH, NENDOOR PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.TIBU DE PARAI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O, ATHIRAMPUZHA - 686 560, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. T.T. MOHAMOOD. R2 BY MR. T.A. SHAJI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 388 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an S.S.L.C. holder. The 2nd respondent university invited applications for selection to the post of Last Grade Servant (Peon) in the university. The minimum qualifications prescribed were ability to read and write. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the university in excluding persons who have passed S.S.L.C. and possessing higher qualifications from the zone of consideration. The petitioner alleges that this amounts to alteration of the requisite qualifications prescribed, after start of the selection process, which is illegal, as held by several decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. 2. Identical question was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in a writ petition filed by another similarly placed candidate for the same selection and by Ext.P7 judgment the writ petition was dismissed holding that sine the number of applicants are high there is nothing wrong in making a screening based on the qualifications stipulated and the nature and duties of the post for which selection is to be made. The petitioner tried to challenge the same by filing a petition for leave to appeal against that judgment. By Ext.P8 order, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- W.P.(C) No. 388/2010 2 “2. Since the petitioner was not a party to the aforementioned writ petition, she is not bound by the said judgment. When she approaches this court to redress her grievance if the said judgment is pressed into service against her, she can say that the principles laid down therein are wrong and therefore, require reconsideration. The application for leave to appeal is not maintainable against a judgment dismissing a writ petition, even if that judgment lays down wrong principles of law.” 3. The petitioner would contend that in view of Ext.P8 order, the petitioner is entitled to canvas the position that Ext.P7 judgment is wrong. No doubt the petitioner can certainly canvas that position, but the petitioner can succeed only if he can satisfy me that Ext.P7 judgment is wrong. From Ext.P7 I find that the learned Judge who passed the same had considered the issues involved threadbare and, in fact, Ext.P7 judgment was rendered on the basis of a Division Bench decision which in turn had considered by decisions including decision of the Supreme Court on that subject. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P7 judgment, so as to take a different view of the matter. Therefore, following Ext.P7 judgment, I dismiss this writ petition. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. mn. W.P.(C) No. 388/2010 3