IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20195 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BAIJU.P.,S/O.P.RAVINDRAN, EWS-187, KSHB, COLONY,MALAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT.OF KERALA. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD R1 BY ADV. MR.K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC. R2 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.20195 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner's parents allegedly named him Jasmine. Some time in 1993, according to the petitioner, he thought it fit to change his name as Baiju. A gazette notification was made. Yet in 1998, when the Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Conductor in KSRTC, the petitioner applied showing his name as Jasmine. The advice of the PSC and the appointment order issued by the KSRTC are issued to Jasmine. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Baiju and Jasmine are one and the same and that he may be permitted to join duty. It is not within the province of this Court to enter into an enquiry as to whether the petitioner is Baiju or whether Jasmine is Baiju. The petitioner says that an enquiry is being conducted by the local officer of the KSRTC at Perinthalmanna as to whether Baiju and Jasmine is the same person and whether the petitioner could be permitted to join duty. If the KSRTC or the PSC, as the case may be, concludes otherwise, it would only WPC.20195/09 Page numbers be a disputed question of fact which would not generate an adjudication by this Court. Therefore, it is directed that if the KSRTC is on any enquiry, let that be completed within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, having regard to the notification and the certification by the local revenue officials which is already on record. It would also be appropriate that the petitioner be bound by appropriate affidavit before the competent authority and also an indemnity in favour of the KSRTC to exclude any further issues. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.11/8.