Antony Dominic, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal highlighting the limited grievance against the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No14646/13 which was filed by the 1st respondent herein. By the judgment under appeal, following Exts.P6 and P8 judgments of this Court, learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to issue experience certificate to the 1st respondent. In the judgment, it was also directed that once the certificate is produced, the appellant shall consider the inclusion of the 1st respondent in the ranked list and that the appellant shall also advise the 1st respondent as and when her turn arises. In this appeal, the PSC complains that the sentence requiring them to advise the 1st respondent can be interpreted as one obliging them to advise the 1st
W.A.No.911/14
: 2 :
respondent even if the certificate is found unacceptable and the candidate is not included in the ranked list.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, we feel that there is no scope for any such interpretation. According to us, once certificate is produced, the judgment only obliges the appellant to consider the case of the 1st respondent for inclusion in the ranked list and if for any reason, the candidate is not included in the ranked list, the direction of the learned single Judge does not oblige the appellant to advise the 1st respondent.
In such circumstances, clarifying the position as above, this appeal is disposed of.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE