IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 1016 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1436/2007 Dated 24/08/2007 .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------------------- SUBHASH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, NEAR P.H.C., KANDAMKULANGARA, KUNHIMANGALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI ALAXANDER THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.1016 OF 2007 IN W.A.NO.1436 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Raman, J. Review petition is filed by the lst respondent in the writ appeal. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Blacksmith Grade-II in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation pursuant to a notification issued by the Public Service Commission (Ext.P12). He filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C).No.21136/2004. By judgment dated 11/10/2004 this Court disposed of the said writ petition, which was produced as Ext.P7 in the case. The petitioner sought for a direction to interview him and his name may also be included in the short list on the basis of Exts.P3 and P5 certificates produced by him. This Court found that no misplaced sympathy can be shown towards the petitioner in the matter of selection, since it is for the petitioner to submit the required certificate and the Public Service Commission has already granted time to the petitioner for producing the certificate as required, this Court disposed of the writ petition. However, granted a week's time for producing the certificate. Petitioner thereafter -2- R.P.No.1016/2007 produced another certificate, Ext.P9, which however shows that it was issued by the same authority, who issued Ext.P3. But curiously enough the period of experience said to have been possessed by the petitioner is different. In the writ appeal filed by the Public Service Commission, a Division Bench of this Court found that the petitioner has not obtained the requisite experience, after acquiring the basic qualification as also after attaining the age of 18 years. 2. Sri Kaleeswaram Raj appearing for the petitioner would contend that as regards the observation of this Court that the experience should be possessed after he attains the age of 18 years is contrary to the notification and as a matter of fact, the qualifications to be possessed as per the notification are: I. ITI certificate in the concerned trade with not less than three years practical experience in General Blacksmithy work. OR a) Ability to read and writ Malayalam, Tamil or Kannada, and b) Proficiency in all works connected with smithy and allied trades for a period of five years. 3. While extracting the qualification in the judgment, according to -3- R.P.No.1016/2007 him, due to the mistake, this Court did not consider the qualification as prescribed in the notification and proceeded as though all qualifications as referred to in the judgment to be possessed by the candidate. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission, on the other hand, would support the judgment and contend that the petitioner did not produce the requisite certificate in the required form. Graciously time was granted to him and even the subsequent certificate produced by him clearly shows some discrepancies in the matter of experience possessed by him as per Exts.P3 and P9. Further, according to him, even though the qualification to be possessed by a candidate is either ITI with requisite experience or proficiency in work, necessarily he has to possess experience from an approved registered workshop or factory. Therefore, in the case of such an experience possessed by a candidate, there is no room for interpreting the notification that such person can even obtain experience from such workshop even before completing the age of 18 years. In other words, the experience a candidate has to possess, must necessarily be after acquiring the age of majority. Even though the notification may not be very clear in this regard, on a true interpretation, we do not find that the view taken by this Court suffers from any errors -4- R.P.No.1016/2007 apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, we dismiss the review petition. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.