IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 W.A.No. 2072 of 2007 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.2922/2001 Dated 29/09/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S)//PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. R.VINAYAKAN NAIR, S/O. K. RAMAN NAIR, CHANDRAMANGALAM, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.KESAVAN, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ANOOP NIVAS, ELAMKULAM, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S)//RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PUNALUR. 3. G.S.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RANJIT JOSEPH, MECHANIC (SPECIAL GRADE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 5. P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN THAMPI, CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALA. 6. K.M.SREEKUMAR, S/O. A.N.MADHAVAN, SREENILAYAM, PAMPAKUDA P.O. 686 667, MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. P.K.SURESH KUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, MATHA NIVAS, EZHANALLUR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI. C.A. MAJEED. R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI. K.R.B. KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE & ADV. SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. R6 AND R7 BY ADV. SRI. T.R. MADHU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2072 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 9th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are employees of the K.S.R.T.C. While the K.S.R.T.C. issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Legal Assistants from among its employees, they applied. But, the respondents 2 to 7 were selected. Challenging their section and appointment, the Original Petition was filed by the appellants. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the Original Petition. The learned Single Judge took the view that the selectees were continuing for the last five years and therefore, it was a dissuading factor for interfering with the selection. On the contention of the appellants that the incumbents were not qualified as per the notification, the learned Single Judge accepted the explanation offered by the first respondent, K.S.R.T.C. Based on the above findings, the W.A. No.2072 of 2007 - 2 - Original Petition was dismissed. 2. If the continuance of the selected incumbents for five years was a dissuading factor, now nine years are over after their selection and appointment. The lack of qualification raised by the appellants was that, as per Ext.P1 notification, the incumbents should have degree in law with specialisation in procedural law. According to the appellants, none of the candidates appointed has the said qualification. The K.S.R.T.C. has explained that earlier when B.L. Degree was awarded procedural law was not included in the syllabus. Now, with the introduction of LL.B., procedural law is also included in the course of study. Based on the earlier curriculum, the qualification was prescribed. At present, the said prescription is irrelevant, as for all LL.B. courses conducted by all the Universities, procedural laws are taught. If the learned Single Judge has chosen to accept the above explanation, we find that it is a plausible view on the question raised by the appellants. Therefore, we find no ground to W.A. No.2072 of 2007 - 3 - interfere with the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)