Dismissed

Souda.a. v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC9 Dec 2011WP(C)/6410/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a rank list for Assistant Town Planner post, arguing exclusion due to lack of interview. Court held rank list unchallengeable as petitioner failed to produce service certificate. However, issued direction to respondents to report vacancies for the 10% departmental quota within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Petitioner's challenge against rank list rejected, but direction issued to report vacancies for departmental quota within one month.

Souda.a. Vs State of Kerala and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 6410 of 2010 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SOUDA A. 2ND GRADE PLANNING SURVEYOR/DRAFTMAN REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE,ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

¶11

BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT.

¶13

(TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING)

¶14

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

¶16

OFFICE OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY, PLANNING

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF P.S.C. PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

4. ARUN G., 2ND GRADE SURVEYOR/DRAFTSMAN REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶20

*ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED.

¶21

5. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER,

¶22

REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

(ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER KIN IA. 2003/11, DTD.10.2.2011.

¶24

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHAEL R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

tss

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.6410/2010

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶30

P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.345/08 DTD. 14.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15.11.2008.

¶32

P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2009.

¶33

P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE REGIONAL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 21.12.09.

¶34

P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 20.1.2010.

¶35

P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.GRIC(I) 27536/03/GW DTD. 29.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶36

P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 9.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

P8:- COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DTD NIL.

¶38

P9:- NIL

¶39

P10:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3/5347/03 DTD. 24.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶40

P11:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(MS) 178/2011/LSGD. DTD. 9.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶41

ANNEXURE R2(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.8.07 ADDRESSED TO SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶46

W.P.(c) No.6410 OF 2010

¶47

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 Rank List

¶50

published by the 3^rd respondent, to the extent it does not include the name of the petitioner. Inter alia, a direction is sought for against the 3^rd respondent to conduct interview for the petitioner, in order to include her name in the Rank List of selected candidates, published pursuant to Ext.P1 notification.

¶51

While the Petitioner was working as Surveyor Gr-II in the office of the Regional Town Planner, Ernakulam the 3^rd respondent published Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Town Planner under the Quota which need be filled up by direct recruitment of Departmental candidates in the subordinate service in the Kerala Town and Country Planning Department. Evidently the notification is intended for appointment by transfer, from eligible candidates working

¶52

W.P.(c) No.6410/2010 -2-

¶53

in the Department, who possess the prescribed qualifications. The qualification prescribed as per Ext.P1 notification are;

¶54

(a) Post Graduate Degree or Post Graduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning or Regional Planning/City planning.

¶55

(b) Degree in Civil Engineering or Architecture or Physical Planning from a University/Institution recognised by the Government.

¶56

According to the petitioner, she possessed the required qualifications and hence applied for the post, in response to Ext.P1 notification. But the required 'service certificate' was not issued by the 5^th respondent inspite of specific request made by the petitioner. Hence her application was not considered by the 3^rd respondent and she was not invited for interview, nor her name was included in Ext.P8 Rank List published. Even though the petitioner made various representations before respondents 2 and 3, complaining about denial of the opportunity, no

¶57

action was taken, since the selection process was

¶58

W.P.(c) No.6410/2010 -3-

¶59

completed and the Rank List was already published.

¶60

According to the 2^nd respondent, the 'service certificate' was not issued on a mistaken impression that, those who are in the cadre of Draftsman/Town Planning Surveyor Gr-II alone were eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Town Planner, under the Departmental quota. Such an impression was created through a circular issued by the 2^nd respondent. It is conceded that no clarification in this regard was sought for during the relevant time and that the petitioner also had not raised any complaint regarding non-issuance of the 'service certificate' during any time before completion of the selection process.

¶61

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent it is stated that the application of the petitioner was not considered for want of necessary 'service certificate' and that the petitioner had failed to produce the requisite credentials along with the application.

¶62

Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the petitioner had failed to produce 'service certificate'

¶63

W.P.(c) No.6410/2010 -4-

¶64

in order to prove her eligibility before the 3^rd respondent. Hence the 3^rd respondent was not in a position to include the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates selected for interview and in the Rank List published as per Ext.P8. Whatever be the circumstances under which the service certificate was denied to the petitioner, the rank list published by the 3^rd respondent cannot be assailed, since no material irregularity or illegality can be pointed out in the process of selection conducted by the 3^rd respondent. Hence the challenge against Ext.P8 fails, and no relief can be granted in this regard.

¶65

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in moulding the relief, to the extent of issuing direction to respondents 2 and 5 to report the existing vacancies in the 10% quota earmarked for Departmental candidates, for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Town Planner. She is also seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to initiate steps for selection as and when the vacancies are reported. Admittedly the Special Rules

¶66

W.P.(c) No.6410/2010 -5-

¶67

provides appointment to the post of Assistant Town Planner by transfer from Departmental candidates who possess the requisite qualification. It is also submitted that 10% seats are reserved for such Departmental candidates. Therefore it is obligatory on the part of respondents 2 and 5 to report vacancies if any existing in the cadre of Assistant Town Planner, which is to be filled up from the quota earmarked for Departmental candidates. Therefore I direct the respondents 2 and 5 to take needful steps in this regard at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶68

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶71

AMG

¶72

True copy

¶73

P.A to Judge

Souda.a. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Souda.a. v. State of Kerala and Others

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

P.K.Rajan Vs the Vadakara Muncipality

V.Lukose Vs State of Kerala & Others

M.Dasan Istitute of Technology Vs All India Council for Technical Educatio

K.Y.Thomas Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Kallulla Parambath Kelappan Vs the District Collector,Kozhikode and Ors.

The Manager Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidhya Vs the Government of Kerala & Others