This is a review petition challenging a writ judgment regarding caste certificate requirements for sponsored candidates. The court held the appointment authority's view was plausible and thus not perverse, and found no ground for review.
Review petition failed and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931
RP.No. 636 of 2009(S)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2470/2009
REVIEW PETITIONER/ 4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC
------------------------------
SEENAMOL K.R., W/O.JINNISHH, KATTADICHIRA HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WPC
------------------------
1. PUSHPALATHA, PUTHANPARAMPIL, THIRUVARPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KERALA CIRCLE, COCHIN.
4. INSPECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, KOTTAYAM WEST SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
R.P.No. 636 OF 2009
Dated, this the 8th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The 4th respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner. In the judgment under review, there is an observation that “at the time of registration, they have to produce materials before the Employment Officer regarding their caste and the said officer on being prima facie satisfied that the candidates belonged to Scheduled Caste community, sponsors them when their turn arises.” The above observation was made, when the 4th respondent pointed out that the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange are allowed to participate in the selection without producing their caste certificate. The review petitioner has produced Annexure-A1 to show that at the time of registration, a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste need not produce his caste certificate. Even assuming, the observation made by us is wrong and Annexure-A1 would show that caste certificate need not be produced by the Scheduled Caste candidates for registering with the Employment Exchange, still that point will not have any bearing on the fate of the case of the review
R.P.No.636/2009
2
petitioner. Annexure-A2, produced along with Ext.P1, stipulates that applications should be submitted in the prescribed form appended to this notification along with attested copies of certificates showing age, caste and educational qualifications. According to the review petitioner, she need only produce certificates showing her caste and not proving her caste. But, the appointing authority took the view that the above stipulation intends that the candidates should produce certificates proving their age, caste and educational qualifications. If such a view is taken by the appointing authority, the same cannot be said to be perverse or one which no man in his senses will take. An administrative decision within jurisdiction can be condemned, if only, it is one which no man in his senses will take. The view taken by the appointing authority is a plausible view. Therefore, neither the Tribunal nor this Court can interfere with the decision. Even assuming, the new ground urged by the review petitioner is valid, still the judgment cannot be reviewed. Accordingly, the Review Petition fails and it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment authority's view that age, caste, and educational certificates must be produced to prove caste is perverse or unsustainable.
SEENAMOL K.R.
PUSHPALATHA
UNION OF INDIA
THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KERALA CIRCLE, COCHIN
INSPECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, KOTTAYAM WEST SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
C. T. RAVIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
