Dismissed

M.Radha v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2010OP/3848/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the appointment of three candidates to part-time sweeper posts, alleging vitiation of the selection process. The court held that the petitioner's SC status and widowhood did not improve her case for the open priority vacancy she contested, as respondent 3 secured higher interview marks.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed and the appointment of the respondents was upheld.

M.Radha Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 3848 of 2003(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

M. RADHA, PANAYIL VEEDU, MELOORKONAM, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTYDIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE, SOUTH ZONE, KOLLAM-1.

¶15

3. C.S. SUNDARAM, NELLIVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, PAPPANACHANI, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27.

¶16

4. S. MURUGAN ASSARY, T.C.23/362 VALIYASALAI, KATTUKULAM, TRIVANDRUM-36.

¶17

5. S. SARALAMMA, T.C.38/1116, SHABABTHI KOIL THERUVE, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R3,R4,R5 SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R5 SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR R3,R4,R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP NO.3848/03

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT 3.8.2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the MEMO DT 4.9.2002. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDIGNS DT 28.9.02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 7.10.97 ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 3848 OF 2003 (G)

¶29

=====================

¶30

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2010

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner's name was sponsored for the post of Part Time Sweeper. Finally, respondents 3 to 5 were appointed. It is challenging their appointment, the original petition is filed. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that she is a scheduled caste candidate and a widow and that the selection process was vitiated. It is on this allegation, the original petition was filed.

¶33

According to the respondents, there were three vacancies, one each for open priority, open non priority and Viswakarma respectively. It is stated that the petitioner was sponsored against one open priority vacancy, to which 10 candidates were sponsored, and that in the interview that was held, the 3^rd respondent secured maximum marks. It is stated that, thereupon the 3^rd respondent was appointed. The allegations against the selection has been denied by the 1^st respondent as also by the party respondents.

¶34

Although the petitioner is challenging appointment of all the three candidates namely respondents 3 to 5, from the

¶35

OP No. 3848/03

¶36

:2 :

¶37

counter affidavit filed, it is evident that the petitioner's candidature was only against one vacancy earmarked for open priority category, to which vacancy, the 3^rd respondent was selected and appointed. Therefore, there is no reason to examine the validity of the appointment of respondents 4 and 5.

¶38

In so far as the 3^rd respondent's appointment is concerned, it was to an open priority vacancy, and therefore the fact that the petitioner was a scheduled caste candidate does not improve her case in any manner. Further, the fact that she is widow also does not help the petitioner to claim any superiority vis-a-vis other candidates. It is evident that selection was based on an interview, and according to the respondents, the 3^rd respondent secured highest marks. While the petitioner asserts that she was an experienced candidate, it is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent that she too was an experienced candidate. In the selection that was held, if a candidate has secured higher marks than others, she is entitled to be appointed. In this case, as between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, both are experienced, and in the process of interview, the 3^rd respondent secured higher marks. In such a

¶39

OP No. 3848/03

¶40

:3 :

¶41

situation, if the 3^rd respondent has been appointed, no fault can be found. In the circumstances, I see no reason to invalidate the appointment of the respondents.

¶42

Original petition is dismissed.

¶43

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶44

M.Radha v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Radha v. the State of Kerala

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

T.a.Radhamani Vs U.K.S.Chauhan

Kishore Kumar M.P. Vs K.Jayakumar I.A.S.

Special Tahsildar (La), Gcda Vs P.C.Mathew

Indian National Anganwadi Employees Fed Vs Usha Titus

K.v.Balakrishnan & Others Vs State of Kerala

S.Money K Vs the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha