Dismissed

Y.Stanly v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2011WP(C)/2362/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of a fourth respondent for a part-time sweeper post over the petitioner. The Court found the petitioner failed to rebut the counter affidavit showing the respondent had superior total marks in the evaluation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there was no merit in the challenge, as the respondent obtained higher total marks in the selection evaluation.

Y.Stanly Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 2362 of 2006(F)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

Y. STANLY, S/O. YOHANNAN, HOUSE NO.1318, VALIYATHODI, P.O. NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.PRAVEENKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

3. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

4. P. RAJAN, PARADISE HOUSE, PERIKKAKODE, ADUVODE, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶17

GOVT. PLEADER BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.2362/2006

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERI TO THE PETITIONER 15.1.05.

¶24

P1(A): COPY OF THE LIST SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A3-5181/2003 OF FEBRUARY 2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶26

P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 21.2.2005.

¶27

P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6776/05 OF THIS HON'BL COURT DATED 24.5.2005.

¶28

P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2005.

¶29

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.2362 of 2006

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2011

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for selection to the post of Part- time Sweeper in the Health Services Department of the Government of Kerala. After interviewing all the candidates whose names were sponsored, the 4^th respondent was selected for appointment. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground that going by the registration seniority with the Employment Exchange the petitioner should have been preferred since the 4^th respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange only in 2003, whereas the petitioner was registered on 24.07.1990. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

¶38

“a) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the original of the same.

¶39

b) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext.P2 and to quash the original of the same to the extent it relates to the 4^th respondent.

¶40

c) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment

¶41

W.P.(C)No.2362 of 2006

¶42

-2-

¶43

to the post of Pat time sweeper earmarked for Nadar community, in preference to the 4^th respondent, since he is having superior claim over the 4^th respondent.”

¶44

A counter affidavit has been filed by the

¶45

1^st respondent wherein it is stated that the 4^th respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange on 24.9.1984 and his date of birth is 25.6.1965, whereas corresponding dates of the petitioner are 24.7.1990 and 10.3.1973 respectively. After interview, the petitioner got 10 marks for Employment Registration seniority, 5 marks for educational qualifications, 5 marks for age, 7 ½ marks for interview and a total of 27 ½ marks. The 4^th respondent got 10 marks for Employment Registration seniority, 5 marks for educational qualifications, 7 marks for age, 7 marks for interview and a total of 29 marks. Since the 4^th respondent got total higher marks than the petitioner, the 4^th respondent was selected in preference to the petitioner, is the contention raised. The petitioner has not chosen to file any reply affidavit.

¶46

I have heard the parties.

¶47

W.P.(C)No.2362 of 2006

¶48

-3-

¶49

The petitioner could not with any satisfactory material controvert the averments in the counter affidavit of the 1^st respondent. If that be so, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the selection process insofar as the 4^th respondent has been selected on the basis of superior merit. The petitioner could not bring out any infirmity in the selection process also. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy//

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶53

shg/

Y.Stanly v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Stanly v. 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

M/S.Kaikara Construction Company Vs South Indian Bank and Others

Abdul Rahiman C.K. Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

Sainudeen Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its Gener

Najiya Mohammed Vs Pushpalatha

P.J.Antony Vs Jacob Kurian

T.N.Sreedharan Pillai Vs State and Others