IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1107 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.501/2008 Dated 10/03/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,2 & 4: ------------------------------- 1. SUSAN KORATH, KUNNAPPILLY POTTAYIL HOUSE, EAST KADATHY, MARKET P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SUDHIR, MADAPPALLIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 562. 3. SINI B.NAIR, CHERIYIL VEEDU, PARALKURI P.O., PALLOKKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & 3RD PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DINESH P.R., KRISHNASREE, ANAD P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 544. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIUS ADV.SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.1107 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated 4th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Petitioners applied for the post of Vocational teacher in the Department of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. By Ext.P3 series of communications dated 16.11.2005, the Public Service Commission informed the petitioners that their applications have been rejected on the ground that petitioners do not possess prescribed qualification. In Ratheesh J. Babu v. PSC & Others (2007 (4) ILR 139) a Division Bench of this Court held that qualification possessed by the petitioners are sufficient qualification for the post. Petitioners in those cases challenged communication by PSC in 2005 itself and there was an interim direction also for interviewing them provisionally. Petitioners filed Ext.P5 series of representations only in WA.1107/08 2 December 2007. Their contention is that the learned Single Judge rejected their writ petition holding that they did not question the communication received by them in 2005 within a reasonable time or immediately after the decision of the Division Bench. Petitioners in the earlier cases approached the Court in 2005 itself. It is submitted that thereafter also one person was interviewed. The Standing Counsel for the PSC submitted that he has also filed a writ petition in 2005, when the communication was received. The contention that as per the decision, interview was conducted and rank list was revised subsequently will not enable them to file cases because if this is the position, another candidate can come on the basis of the facts and there will be no end to the process and list cannot be finalised. Ext.P2 notification was published on 12.10.2004 and the original rank list was published in December 2005. At this distance of time, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge correctly held that petitioners claim need not be WA.1107/08 3 entertained again due to laches which will affect large number of ranked candidates. We agree with the views of the learned Single Judge, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 26th May, 2008