HIGH COURT OF KERALA Vs. ANEENA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.13936 of 2024, since it has found the 1st respondent eligible to be considered for appointment to its services as a "Senior System Officer."

(2.) The specific contention of Sri.M.R.Anison learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, is that the 1st respondent does not have the work experience as required under Ext.P1 notification; and consequently, that the declarations in the judgment are incorrect and impermissible.

(3.) Sri.K.M.Firoz learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, controverted the afore submissions, relying primarily upon Exts.P14 and P15 proceedings of the 1 st appellant and arguing that whatever be the contentions that may be urged, and even assuming they can be accepted, the fact remains that his client was directly involved in the "e-Courts project" as a System Assistant at least from the date on which Ext.P15 was issued, namely, 29/6/2020. He pointed out that, as per Ext.P1, the work experience requisite is only for three years prior to its date and that the 1st appellant themselves had issued Ext.P3 Experience Certificate to his client affirming this. He argued that, in such circumstances, this appeal by the appellants against the judgment is uncharitable and unnecessary.