IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 39 of 2010(W) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36622/2009 Dated 18/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- ABDUL JABBAR U.C., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED MASTER, UKKAYYA CHETTA, KADAMATH ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KAVARATTI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. NASAR A., S/O.AHMED, AGED 30 YEARS, ARANAKADA HOSUE, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 4. CHERIAKOYA K.K., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O.NALLAKOYA, KUNJALEKKAL HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 & 2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ R.P.39/2010 in WP(C).36622/2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2010 ORDER 1. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 18.12.2009 upholding the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent as Driver under respondents 1 and 2. In this Review Petition, the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent was unqualified for the post, for the reason that he did not have the prescribed five years' experience. 2. In view of the above specific averment, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 was directed to get instructions in the matter. Accordingly, he has obtained instructions and it is submitted that none of the candidates who responded to Ext.P1 notification had the prescribed five years experience and therefore, the length of experience prescribed was relaxed and that it is on that basis, the selection was conducted. According to him, petitioner is also a beneficiary of such relaxation and that in the situation that followed, the 3rd respondent came out successful. R.P.39/10 2 3. However, it is now disclosed that although the 3rd respondent had only two years' and eight months' experience, petitioner had four years experience even going by Ext.P4 itself. It is stated that Ext.P5 certificate certifying two more years experience, was not accepted for the reason that it was issued by a private individual. 4. From the above submission, it is obvious that while the 3rd respondent did not have the prescribed length of experience, if the experience as certified in Exts.P4 and P5 were taken, petitioner would have been an eligible candidate. Prima facie, I am not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that Ext.P5 certificate could not accepted for the reason that it was issued by a private individual, since no such restriction was incorporated in Ext.P1 Circular inviting applications. Therefore, admittedly the candidate selected is an ineligible candidate whereas the petitioner was prima facie at least, an eligible candidate. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am persuaded to think that an error has been committed by dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the contentions noticed above. R.P.39/10 3 4. Therefore the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in W.P.(C). 36622/2009 will stand reviewed and the judgment is recalled. Review Petition will stand allowed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs