IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 12971 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHIJU K VARKEY, KOOMULLIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SRI. V. VIJULAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.12971/2011 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE PHYSICAL DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ENGINEERING DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : COPY OF SHORT LIST. EXT. P4 : COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF INTERVIEW PROGRAMME. EXT. P5 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER DTD. 4.12.10. EXT. P6 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT. P7 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY R1 TO PETITIONER DTD. 28.1.11. EXT. P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE CHAIRMAN DTD. 11.2.11. EXT. P9 : COPY OF MEMO ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY DTD. 28.4.09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12971 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a physically handicapped who applied for the post of Lecturer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering to be appointed in the Engineering Colleges. The last date fixed for receipt of the application was on 15.04.2009. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the result of the Engineering Examination was not finally published, the petitioner applied for the post and participated in the written examination. In the short list, the petitioner was included under Othopaedically handicapped. He was also allowed to participate in the interview. 3. By Ext.P5, the petitioner was informed that going by the date of publication of the result, the same is after the last date prescribed for submitting the application and he was directed to obtain a certificate from the Calicut University stating that he had obtained the Degree before 15.04.2009. Ext.P6 is a W.P.(C) No.12971/2011 2 communication issued by the University which apparently shows that the result was published on 18.04.2009 which was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner in turn forwarded the same to the 1st respondent. In Ext.P7 communication, the view taken by the Public Service Commission is that the petitioner has not acquired the educational qualification on 15.04.2009, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. The Public Service Commission in their counter affidavit has pointed out that the petitioner was only provisionally included in the selection process. The petitioner ought to have obtained the B.Tech Degree as on the last date for receipt of the application and therefore, the acquisition of qualification subsequent to the date will not be of any advantage to the petitioner. 5. Evidently, the crucial date is the last date for receipt of the application on which the candidates should have acquired the qualification. Herein, the results were published only on 18.04.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that W.P.(C) No.12971/2011 3 the Pass Board conducted their meeting on 07.04.2009 but the results evidently were announced only on 18.04.2009. The same will not be of any help to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has not acquired the qualification on the last date for receipt of the application, the rejection of the application cannot be said to be wrong. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp