IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2164 of 2009(V) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7940/2009 Dated 06/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- V.R.PRASANNA DEVI, ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHEMIST, REGIONAL CONSERVATION LABORATORY, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, SREEPADAM PALACE, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER BENNY GERVACIS STANDING COUNSEL ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JJ ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2164 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October,2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph.J The appellant petitioner, Smt.V.R.Prasanna Devi approa- ched this court claiming regularisation in the post of Archaeological Chemist in the department of Archaeology. Admittedly she is not qualified. Qualified hands are available, and they have been selected in a due process of selection conducted by the PSC. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition directing regular appointment by replacing petitioner, an unqualified hand by a duly qualified person from the ranked list published by the PSC. 2. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant has been continuing in the post for a some time and she is retiring on 31/3/2010. If the qualified hand is appointed she will be reverted. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the very condition attached to the appointment of petitioner (Ext.P1) is that the appointment is under the Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the KS & SSR, in relaxation of W.A. No.2164 of 2009 2 the qualification. It is specifically stated so in the appointment order, when PSC hand joins duty the petitioner will be reverted. It is seen from Ext.R1(d) that a qualified hand has already been advised by the PSC. Necessarily the petitioner will have to give way to the qualified hand. The petitioner continued in the post only in terms of Ext.P1 appointment order. In terms of the very same order she has to vacate the post so as to accommodate the person appointed by PSC. Thus there is no merit in the writ appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE ssn