Allowed

Balish P.P. v. the University of Calicut

Kerala HC15 Oct 2010OP/15723/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged a selection process for Light Motor Vehicle Driver posts at Calicut University. The court, relying on an internal enquiry report, found the process irregular, opaque, and non-compliant with PSC norms due to methodological flaws and potential manipulation.

What did the court decide?

The court set aside the selection process and ordered the University to conduct a fresh selection within six months in strict accordance with PSC norms, using a competent officer from the Motor Vehicl

Balish P.P. Vs the University of Calicut — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 15723 of 2002(V)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

------------------------

¶9

BALISH P.P., PARAYULLA PINANGOT HOUSE, P.O.ERAMANGALAM, BALUSSERY.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.MUHAMMED RAHAZ SRI.K.A.RASHEED

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.

¶14

2. THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY.

¶15

3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY.

¶16

*ADDL. R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED.

¶17

4. K.R.PRASHANTH KUMAR ''SREELAKSHMI''

¶18

THENJIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636.

¶19

5. BABURAJAN A., USHA NIVAS, FEROKE COLLEGE P.O., MALAPPURAM DT.

¶20

6. I.ANANDAPRAKASH, KEERANGATTU HOUSE, P.O. MORAYUR, MALAPPURAM DT. 673 649.

¶21

ADDL. R4 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 14.7.04 IN IA. NO.8725/2004.

¶22

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR ADDL.R4 ADDL.R4 TO R6 BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶23

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010 , ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5393 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

OP. NO.15723/2002

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶27

P1:- COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOR WRITTEN TEST DTD. 17.4.2002. P2:- COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶32

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004

¶33

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2010

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

These two writ petitions relate to challenge against a selection made by the Calicut University for appointment to the post of Light Motor Vehicle Driver in the year 2002. A notification was issued inviting applications for the post. The petitioners were also applicants. A written test was conducted. The petitioner in O.P.No.15723/2002 passed the written test. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5393/2004 did not. Thereafter, a practical test and an interview were conducted. The practical test was conducted by a retired KSRTC driver. The petitioner in O.P.No.15723/2002 challenges the practical test as illegal and against the procedure contemplated and followed by the first respondent. According to him, the entire practical test was a farce. He also alleges that the then Vice Chancellor, who was to retire by the third week of June 2002, had got the entire selection procedure completed in a haste before his retirement

¶36

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 2

¶37

for reasons which are not bona fide. According to him, the Vice Chancellor did not even consult the other selection committee members as to the process to be adopted and conducted the entire process at his personal whims is the contention of that petitioner.

¶38

The petitioner in W.P.(c)No.5393/2004 challenges the conduct of written test itself on the ground that the notification inviting applications did not contemplate a written test. According to him, as per the notification, the selection was to be made only on the basis of a practical test and interview. He would submit that in view of wide spread complaints about the whole selection process, the Vice Chancellor of the University directed an enquiry into the whole selection process, pursuant to which Ext.P4 enquiry report was submitted, which would prove that the entire process including the written test was conducted irregularly. The petitioners, therefore, seek cancellation of the entire selection process and direction to conduct fresh selection from among the applicants who submitted applications pursuant to the notification dated 28.12.2001. In O.P.No.15723/2002, the University has not

¶39

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 3

¶40

chosen to file even a statement. In W.P.(c)No.5393/2004, they filed a statement, which contains no answers to any of the allegations in either of the two writ petitions. The only contention they have taken is that the selection committee decided to conduct the written test, since to restrict the number of candidates in view of the fact the number of applicants was very large. Three of the selected candidates have chosen to implead themselves in W.P.(c)No.5393/2004, and the 4^th one in both the writ petitions. They also have not chosen to file any counter affidavit.

¶41

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 report in the enquiry conducted by the University (in W.P.(c)No.5393/2004) is an answer to every issue involved in these two writ petitions. The operative portion of the same reads as follows:

¶42

“1.11 A close scrutiny also revealed the following

¶43

(i) Though the selection committee minutes indicates PSC procedure for the conduct of selection, the procedure existing in PSC is not seen observed. The decision to conduct the written test and to entrust the whole matter to a local University teacher in Folklore may give room for allegations as the person has nothing to do with driving or related work.

¶44

(ii) The procedure in PSC is to entrust the question paper setting to 3 competent persons and

¶45

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 4

¶46

one set of question papers submitted in sealed cover received from all the three will be approved based on blind choice. Neither the question paper setter nor the approving authority would get a chance to know the details and utmost secrecy will be maintained. Here in the present case the question paper setter, the Controller of the test and the valuation etc are administered to one and the same person and the marks awarded as seen in the files are not countersigned or authenticated by the selection committee. There was also a mistake in the question paper.

¶47

(iii) The practical test was conducted by a retired driver from KSRTC and candidates have challenged the credentials of the expert. One member of the selection committee also raised serious allegation against the expert. The ViceChancellor had handpicked this particular person and no justification for the same is seen recorded anywhere giving room for allegation that the selection of expert was arbitrary. A senior and competent person from the motor vehicle department would have been a better choice and this would eliminate room for allegations. However the marks awarded by the expert to all the candidates is below the range of 2-40% only. 20 marks were awarded for the interview out of 100. For PSC selection this is usually around 15% only.

¶48

(iv) In the notification is announced that only a practical test and an interview will be held. In modification of that later a written test was also introduced with 50 percentage of marks.

¶49

(v) The appointments on a regular basis was not done by the University. Provisional appointment from the rank list was made. It is seen that the principle of communal reservation for multiple posts as per the provisions in the Calicut University Act Statutes were not followed.

¶50

(vi) It is desirable that the University had made the selection process fool proof so that no room for complaints or allegations are made. The two files and complaints etc are returned along with this report”

¶51

The same shows that the entire process was conducted in an

¶52

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 5

¶53

irregular manner and contrary to the selection norms adopted by the selection committee themselves. I am of opinion that when the selection committee has decided to follow the procedure followed by the PSC, they could not have conducted the selection procedure without complying with the procedure usually adopted by the PSC. The enquiry officer has specifically found that it has not been done in accordance with the procedure in the PSC. His report would also suggest that in view of not following the procedure, secrecy expected of such a selection process was not maintained in respect of preparing the question papers. He has also stated that there was a mistake in the question paper. The tenor of the report is that because of procedure prescribed by the PSC was not followed, there was chance of manipulation by a single person who dealt with the whole process. He also had found fault with a retired driver from the KSRTC conducting the practical test instead of an officer from the Motor Vehicles Department.

¶54

I am of opinion that in view of the findings in Ext.P4 enquiry report, there is no transparency in the entire selection process. Both the persons, who entrusted with the task of

¶55

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 6

¶56

conducting the written test and the person, who conducted the practical test, had ample opportunity to manipulate things.

¶57

In the above circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the entire selection process and appointments made pursuant thereto. I do so. The University shall conduct a fresh selection by issuing a fresh notification inviting applications. The persons, who have already applied pursuant to the earlier notification need not apply afresh and they shall also be allowed to participate in the selection process notwithstanding age bar if any attained after the earlier notification, along with other who may apply pursuant to the fresh notification. In view of the fact that the number of applicants would be so as to justify screening by a written test, the University would be free to conduct a fresh written test. Such written test shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure followed by the PSC for similar selections. The practical test shall be conducted by an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Joint Regional Transport Officer. Till fresh selection is finalised and appointments made pursuant to such selection, the persons,

¶58

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 7

¶59

who have been appointed pursuant to the selection process, which I have set aside shall be allowed to continue provisionally. The entire process shall be completed within a period of six months. In this connection, I also note that the selected persons have filed O.P.No.7621/2003 which has been dismissed on 20.10.2006 as infructuous, in view of their appointment.

¶60

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶61

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶62

acd

¶63

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 8

¶64

O.P.No.15723/02 & W.P.(C) No.5393 OF 2004 9

Balish P.P. v. the University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balish P.P. v. the University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Pankajakshi Amma Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Customs and Others Vs a.P.Steel Re-Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Altima Tours and Travels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India & Another

C.D.Sasikumar Vs Dr.S.Raveendran I.A.S

Kanakarajan Vs State of Kerala

Jyothish Chandra v. Vs Secretary to Government