IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 20788 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BAIJU.K.D, S/O.K.S.DIVAKARAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688525. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM-695004, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20788 OF 2008 Y ==================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Responding to the notification issued by the 1st respondent for the post of Instrument Mechanic in Medical Education Department, petitioner submitted an application. The special qualification prescribed was Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with minimum one year experience in “Manufacturing and Servicing” of Scientific equipments or Industrial Training Institute Certificate in Instrument Mechanic Trade with atleast 3 years experience in the “Manufacture and servicing” preferably Optical instruments, Electro-medical equipments etc. The application made by the petitioner was initially rejected on the ground that the experience certificate produced was defective. 2. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court as WP(C) No.34201/07. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner obtained Ext.P5 certificate to the effect that he had experience in “repair and service charge of various instruments in the hospitals”. Thereafter, when the above writ petition came up for orders before this court, the case was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, directing that the application WPC 20788/08 :2 : made by the petitioner shall be processed and considered taking into account Ext.P5 certificate as well. 3. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent and by Ext.P7, the certificate was held to be inadequate as the petitioner did not have the experience in “Manufacture and Servicing” prescribed in the notification issued. 4. Evidently, even Ext.P5 certificate only testifies the experience of the petitioner in repair and service while the prescribed experience is in manufacture and servicing. Thus the petitioner admittedly lacks experience in manufacture and therefore, I do not find anything irregular in Ext.P7 communication issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp