IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 464 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7622/2010 Dated 16/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- SAJEESH BABU K., KAVALAPPARA,KAVALAPPUR HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA SMT.M.RAMANYA GAYATHRI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.K. SANTHOSH, NERUKAKKAD HOUSE, KILIYANTHARA P.O., KANNUR - 670 706. 2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682 302. 3. DR.P.K.MOHANAN, S/O.KUNJUMON P.K., PATTERIKUDIYIL HOUSE, PUTHURVAYAL P.O., KALPETTA VIA, WAYANAD - 673 121. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.K. SATHEESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUJIN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 464 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 16.03.2011 in W.P.(C) No.7622 of 2010, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition preferred the instant appeal. 2. The dispute revolves round the L.P.G distributorship of the 1st respondent Company for an outlet at Edavanna in Malappuram District. The appellant herein and the writ petitioner were applicants along with others. Eventually, the appellant was chosen by the 1st respondent company to be its dealer, which decision came to be challenged in the abovementioned writ petition. 3. The ground of challenge is that as per the terms of the notification inviting applications, there is a requirement of work experience. To satisfy the said requirement, the appellant produced certain certificates from the various private employers. The writ petitioner challenged the genuineness of those certificates on various grounds and by the judgment WA No. 464 of 2011 -:2:- under appeal the learned Judge accepted the challenge. The learned Judge opined that the appellant who was a student of M.Tech in the Cochin University at the relevant point of time but produced certificates of experience to indicate that he was working during the same time at Malappuram. Apart from that the learned Judge also noticed that the period of service indicated in Exts.P2 and P3 certificates overlaps. In other words, the appellant was serving two masters simultaneously, apart from pursuing the Post Graduate Course. The learned Judge therefore declined to believe the genuineness of the certificates and allowed the writ petition. We do not see any reason to take a different view than the one taken in the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb WA No. 464 of 2011 -:3:-