IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33569 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.G.NARAYANANKUTTY SECURITY SUPERVISOR, AGENT NO.12033 AICL COCHIN, CIAL , NEDUMBASSERRY RESIDING PALAKKATTU PUTHEN PURA, NAYATHODE PO ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM 683 572. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED (CIAL) KOCHI AIRPORT PO,KERALA 683 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER HR COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED KOCHI AIRPORT PO,KERALA 683 111 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33569 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Ex-service man who has applied for the posts of Assistant Manager-Security and Supervisor-Security under the first respondent. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P5 for the reason that the certificates submitted by him along with the application form did not specify whether he possessed first class/second class/third class for his graduation. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was a Naval personnel for more than 15 years, he was eligible to be treated as a graduate in terms of Exts.P2 and P3. However, Ext.P4 which is the proforma of the application form submitted by the petitioner does not contain any concession to persons such as the petitioner. The petitioner has a further case that since his land has wpc 33569/2009 2 been acquired for establishing the Air Port, he was entitled to preference in the matter of appointment, which has been specifically provided in Ext.P4 also. However, it is not disputed that Ext.P4 does not contain any provision for relaxation of the qualification of graduation. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that he is eligible to be treated as a graduate in the light of Exts.P2 and P3, though he is not a graduate. According to the counsel, he is also entitled to preference in the matter of appointment because his land has been acquired for establishing the Air Port. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are disputed by the Standing Counsel for the Air Port Authority, who has filed a statement disputing the claim of the petitioner. According to him in paragraph-4 of the statement, it has been contended that Ext.P2 Certificate of Equation of Graduation issued by the Indian Navy would not make the wpc 33569/2009 3 petitioner a Graduate. It is his specific case that the certificate prescribes equivalence in the case of appointments to reserved posts in Group-C in the central service, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. According to the Standing Counsel, the said certificate would not apply to the appointments in a public limited company like the Cochin International Air Port, the first respondent herein. I refrain from considering the correctness of the contentions raised by those parties. It is up to the first respondent to decide whether to relax the qualification in a given case or not. In the above view of the matter, the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the first respondent for re- consideration of the stand adopted in Ext.P5. This Writ petition is accordingly disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a proper representation before the first respondent setting out his grievances, within a period of one week from wpc 33569/2009 4 today. If such a representation is made, the first respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/