IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 865 of 2008(E) IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.591/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- LIJI POTHEN, W/O.K.V.KURIAN, KOTTARATHIL, PAMBADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19 & 20 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 17: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.VENUGOPAL, VENU NIVAS, THONNALLUR, PANDALAM. 2. BINU.V., PUTHEN BUNGALOW, EDANADU P.O POYYAPPALLY (VIA), KOLLAM. 3. AJITH S.S., PRATHIBHA, EDAVANASSERY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. 4. GEETHA.S., KIZHAKKIDATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KANDANCHIRA, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM. 5. K.B.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SYLAVILASAM, ANAKOTTOOR P.O., EZHUKONE (VIA), KOLLAM. 6. BEENU KUMARI P.G., MURALI SADANAM, PEEZHOORKONAM, EZHUKONE P.O. 7. DIPUNATH V.S., V.S.MANDIRAM, CLAPPANA NORTH, CLAPPANA.P.O KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN 690 525. 8. USHA KUMARI P.S., USHA BHAVAN, THAZHATHU VADAKKU PO. ENCHU (VIA) KOLLAM. R.P.865/08 9. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. JYOTHI VIDHYADHARAN, JYOTHI NIVAS, WEMENI, MUNDROTHURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM-6. 11. CHAKRAN.S., MUTTATHURA VEEDU, KALAMCHAL P.O., VAMANAPURAM (VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 12. DINES.G., DINESH BHAVAN, PULLUTHOTTAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O., ALUMCODE (VIA), ATTINGAL. 13. ABDUL GAFOOR P.H., KAKKAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, THONNALLUR, PANDALAM P.O. 14. SREERAJ V., SREEVILASOM, NATTAYAM P.O POOYPPALLY (VIA), KOLLAM. 15. JAYAKRISHNAN P., CHEMPARA VEEDU, THAZHAM, CHATHANNUR P.O., KOLLAM. 16. MINI.T., CHURUVILA KADAYIL VEEDU, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM. 17. HARSHA KUMAR.S., LAL BHAVANAM, ADUTHALA P.O., KARAMCODU, KOLLAM. 18. RIYADH A., PADINJAREPANACHIVILA, NEAR M.N.JUNCTION, PANDALAM. 19. S.BIJU, KUNNUMPUZHATHU, KALLUMTHAZHAM PO KOLLAM. 20. BEEN RAHIMAN, PUTHENTHOPPIL, S.R.P. MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 21. ANITHA.L., PANAVILA PADINJATTATHIL, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 506. 22. AJI.S.S., ILAYIL, KUZHIMUKKU, ATTINGAL. 23. SAJI.V., VILAYIL VEEDU, KOTTUKUNNAM P.O., VAMANAPURAM (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 24. RAJU KOCHUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAKKANADU P.O., KOLLAM 691 505. R.P.865/08 25. LETHA A.S., CHACHIRAYIL HOUSE, POOZHIKAL P.O., KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 504. BY ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C., KPSC ADV.SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------- C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 O R D E R KOSHY,J. C.M.APPLN.NO.356/2008 IN R.P.NO.865/2008 For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay is condoned. R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 Appellants approached this Court stating that their applications were unduly rejected, even though they were short listed, because of lack of prescribed qualification in the notification. Prescribed qualification in the notification is two years Certificate course in Engineering. The appellants were having three years Diploma course in Engineering. Based on C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) 2 the Supreme Court decision in Jyothy K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission (JT 2002 Suppl (1) SC 85) and Partha Radha v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) ILR Kerala 53), they were having the prescribed qualification. It was directed by interim order dated 17.2.2005, that appellants who were having prescribed qualification should be included in the rank list and should be advised when their time arise. Thereafter, the PSC was asked to file a statement. Appellants were included in the rank list as they were having sufficient qualification. The above action of the PSC is confirmed with the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyothy's case (supra) and when order was passed in the writ appeal. Thereafter, when the final order was passed, the Division Bench directed to make advices according to the rank list. The appellants were not considered earlier only on the contention that they were not having prescribed qualification. But on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, this Court found that they were having qualification as they were having three years Diploma C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) 3 course in Engineering instead of two years Certificate course in Engineering. The rights of the review petitioner is not affected. But it was held by the Supreme Court in Jyothy's case (supra) that subsequent judgment will not affect the right of the already advised candidates who are not parties to the case. Hence, if the review petitioner was given advice earlier to the judgment of the writ appeal, in one of the existing vacancies, he should be provided and should be given advice and subsequent change in the rank list will not affect the rights of the petitioner who was already advised. With the above observations, this review petition is disposed of. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE prp C.M.APPLN.NO.356 OF 2008 IN R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) & R.P.NO.865 OF 2008 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2004 (E) 4 J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 4th August, 2008