IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15415 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SOFFEE TECE, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. P.D. THOMAS, PULLANTHANICKAL, BN/89, MICROWAVE LANE, BAPPUJI NAGAR,MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT MR.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRADEEP SAJI K., AGED 32, S/O. KUMARAN, SNRA 100, POONTHI ROAD,KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR FOR R3 MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R3 MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.15415 of 2008-I ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.Sunil Nair Palakat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission and Sri.V.Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner who was an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Director (Polygraph) has filed this writ petition challenging the inclusion of the name of the third respondent in Ext.P4 ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 11.3.2008. The petitioner contends that the third respondent does not possess five years experience in Experimental Psychology/Psychological Process from a recognized institution and therefore he is not qualified and eligible to be appointed. According to the petitioner, among the applicants she alone possesses all the qualifications prescribed in the special rules for technical posts in the Forensic Science Laboratory. 3. The qualifications prescribed for appointment by direct recruitment to the category of Assistant Director (Polygraph) are:- W.P(C) No.15415 of 2008-I 2 “(a) Essential Qualification: 1. Post graduate Degree in Psychology with not less than 50% marks from a recognised institution or its equivalent qualification. 2. 5 years experience in Experimental Psychology/Psychological Process from a recognised institution. (b) Preferential Qualification: 1. M.Phil Degree in Psychology from a recognized University. 2. Previous experience in handling Polygraph (lie Director) and interrogation from a recognized institution.” 4. The petitioner and the third respondent possess a Post Graduate degree in Psychology. The dispute is whether the third respondent has five years experience in Experimental Psychology/ Psychological Process from a recongised Institution. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that besides her none of the other candidates possess the second essential qualification prescribed in the special rules. The petitioner contends that the third respondent has no experience in Experimental Psychology/Psychological Process for the prescribed period of five years. 5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and produced along with it Exts.R3(c) and R3(d) certificates to prove that he has experience as a Clinical Psychologist from 19.3.2001 onwards. The third respondent contends that it is not necessary that the experience should be in Experimental Psychology and that it is enough if the applicant has experience in Psychological process. He contends that as a W.P(C) No.15415 of 2008-I 3 Clinical Psychologist, he has experience in Psychological process. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit justifying the inclusion of the third respondent in the ranked list. According to the Kerala Public Service Commission, the third respondent is eligible for appointment as Assistant Director (Polygraph). 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The second essential qualification prescribed in the special rules is five years experience in Experimental Psychology/ Psychological Process. The fact that the third respondent is a Clinical Psychologist by profession and possess the qualification prescribed for a Clinical Psychologist is not in dispute. Exts.R3(c) and R3(d) prove that the third respondent has experience as a Clinical Psychologist from 19.3.2001 onwards. As on the last date fixed in Ext.P1 notification he had more than five years experience as a Clinical Psychologist. While the petitioner contends that experience as a Clinical Psychologist is not adequate, the third respondent and the Commission contend that experience as a Clinical Psychologist is experience in Psychological process. In my opinion as per the Special Rules, it is not necessary that an applicant for the post of Assistant Director (Polygraph) should possess five years experience in Experimental Psychology. A candidate possessing five years experience in Psychological Process is also eligible and qualified to apply. As a Clinical Psychologist who has W.P(C) No.15415 of 2008-I 4 been practicing for the past more than eight years it cannot be said that the third respondent does not have experience in Psychological process. The Kerala Public Service Commission also did not have any doubt as to the eligibility of the third respondent. In these circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the third respondent does not possess the prescribed experience qualification. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab