Appeal in a commissioning dispute where the appellant challenged the University of Kerala's appointment of another candidate to a reserved Latin Catholic post after caste status verification cleared the appointee.
The appeal was dismissed allowing the University of Kerala to appoint the appellant-challenged candidate to the reserved post.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931
WA.No. 2197 of 2009()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP.801/2009 Dated 17/08/2009 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32974/2007 Dated 23/10/2008
APPELLANT(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY
DR.P.S.ANIL JOSE, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 34, PEZHUMVILA MARY VILASAM, KUMBALAM P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA- 691 503.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5
R1 BY ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR. R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J,
The appellant was not a party to the writ petition.
He claims that he belongs to Latin Catholic community and is having all the necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Psychology. Ext.P1 was the notification issued by the Kerala University for appointment to the said post. Three vacancies were notified. The first vacancy was reserved for Muslims, the second for open merit candidate and
the third for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian. The first respondent was an applicant for the post under the LC/AI community quota. He was interviewed along with other candidates. But the Selection Committee did not recommend him. The Minutes of the Selection Committee does not mention the reason for not recommending a candidate under the LC/AI quota. But the University has revealed the reason. According
WA. 2197/2009.
2
to it, there was only one candidate, the first respondent, from the said community. Somebody raised dispute regarding his caste
status. Therefore, the matter was referred to the District Collector, Kollam. Though the District Collector reported in favour of the first respondent, the University was not satisfied with the report. So it asked the KIRTADS to enquire and report on the caste status of the said respondent. When the matter was pending before the KIRTADS, the University decided to re-notify the said post. In the above background, the first respondent filed the writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. The learned Single Judge held that for the reason of delay from the part of KIRTADS, the University cannot deny the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment to the post in view of his application submitted pursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition was therefore allowed issuing the following directions:
“Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the University shall take up the matter with KIRTADS and get the enquiry expedited and on
WA. 2197/2009. 3
receipt of the report from KIRTADS take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the third vacancy of Lecturer in Psychology reserved for Latin Catholic community notified by Ext.P1.”
above judgment. According to him, the first respondent did not belong to LC community. If that be so, in the absence of any candidate, the vacancy has to be notified. In that event, he will get a chance to apply. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition. Challenging the said order in the review petition and the main judgment in the writ petition, this appeal is preferred. The learned Standing Counsel for the University admitted before us that the KIRTADS have cleared the first respondent. Since he was not considered for appointment, the first respondent moved this court by filing a contempt application. During the pendency of the said application, the University appointed him.
does not belong to LC community, the vacancy has to be notified.
4
WA. 2197/2009.
In that event, he could apply. But since the KIRTADS cleared the
first respondent, the said claim is plainly untenable.
respondent was not interviewed and therefore he could not have straightaway been appointed. But at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant modified the said submission by clarifying that the first respondent was interviewed as an open merit candidate and not as a candidate belonging to LC community. The said submission does not appeal to common sense. From the materials on record, we find that he has been interviewed and he has been awarded marks also. His name was not recommended because there was some dispute regarding his caste status. The Selection Committee has no business to do that. It was bound to give its recommendation having regard to the claim of the first respondent that he belongs to Latin Catholic community. It is for the appointing authority to decide whether he belongs to Latin Catholic community or not. The Selection
WA. 2197/2009. 5
Committee has no brief to enter into that dispute. So the contention that the first respondent could not have been appointed for the reason that he was not interviewed as a Latin Catholic candidate is plainly untenable. Going by the marks in the interview, we find that no bench mark has been fixed as the minimum marks required for appointment. Interview was mainly meant to assess the relative merit. If that be so, the first respondent being the only LC candidate in the fray, the University rightly decided to appoint him in the absence of any disqualification.
In the result, the appeal is devoid of any merit and it is
dismissed.
K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge
P. Bhavadasan, Judge
sb.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to appointment in a reserved quota for Latin Catholics given the university's appointment of the first respondent who was cleared by the caste authority.
Whether the selection committee had jurisdiction to recommend the first respondent for appointment to the reserved post when the caste status was disputed.
DR.P.S.ANIL JOSE
DR.R.JOHNSON
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
