IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1620 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23439/2005 Dated 04/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONER -------------- ANIL BABU B.K., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PAINTER P.C.4004, A.R.CAMP, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673 651. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT OF POLICE, A.R.CAMP, MALAPPURAM - 673 651. MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No.1620 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to grant the relief prayed for i.e. consideration of the appellant for appointment as Photographer in the Police Department. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and also gone through the judgment under challenge. 3. Admittedly, the qualification required is degree in Fine Arts, wherein “photography” should be one of the subjects. On going through the documents and after hearing the appellant, what we notice is “photography” is only part of one of the subjects in the course study underwent by the appellant. When “photography” is called for as one of the subjects in the qualifying degree, it necessarily means that the W.A.No.1620/2011 2 course study should have “photography” as an important subject, and in the degree course underwent by the appellant “photography” is not a subject and is only part of one of the subjects. Consequently, the learned Single Judge rightly declined the appellant's claim. Therefore, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg