Allowed

Sheema.S v. Edcavanakkad Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC2 Nov 2012WP(C)/23571/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning an appointment dispute under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the High Court held that the petitioner should be appointed on a provisional basis pending fresh selection proceedings ordered under specific norms and regulations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on a provisional basis and to complete selection proceedings within three months.

Sheema.S Vs Edcavanakkad Grama Panchayat — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/11TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 23571 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHEEMA.S

¶8

W/O MOHAMED ZULFIKAR, KURUDAMPARMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 502

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. EDCAVANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EDAVANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAVANAKKAD P.O ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 502

¶12

2. BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, VYPIN BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KUZHUPILLY P.O

¶13

PIN – 682 509

¶14

3. SURESH K.A, KOTTUNGAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM- 682 502

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MJL

¶18

*WP(C).No. 23571 of 2012 (V)*

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT. P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 10-04-2012
EXT. P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 16-06-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT. P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF OVERSEER (NREGS)
EXT. P4	:	TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS) NO. 167/09/LSGD DATED 26-08-2009
EXT. P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30-07-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-07-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT. P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-08-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT. P8	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30-07-2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P A TO JUDGE

MJL

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

- - - - W.P.(c) No. 23571 OF 2012

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 2^nd day of November , 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Appointment to the post of Overseer in the first respondent

¶32

Panchayat under the 'National Rural Employment Guarantee' Scheme is the subject matter of issue involved in this case.

¶33

Pursuant to the information as to the availability of the post

¶34

in question as it appeared in a local daily ( Ext.P1), the petitioner, who is a Diploma holder in the concerned field made an application. After conducting the selection, the merit of the candidates was assessed, wherein the petitioner came to be enlisted at Rank No.2, as discernible from Ext.P3. The candidate at Rank No.1, who is the third respondent in the present case, is not qualified to be appointed to the post in question as per Ext.P4 norms for the fact that he does not have the requisite Diploma.

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the norms stipulated by way of Ext.P4, the candidate has to be a Degree or Diploma holder and the person like the third respondent, who is

¶36

W.P.(C)No.23571/2012

¶37

¶38

having only a certificate in the relevant trade, cannot be considered for the post. Despite the position as above, the petitioner was let down and appointment was given to the third respondent by the Panchayat, against which complaint was preferred by the petitioner before different authorities. Ext.P5 is a communication served to the petitioner by the concerned Block Panchayat informing her that necessary advice and instruction have already been given to the first respondent to correct the mistake. The course pursued by the Block Programme Officer of the concerned Block is also discernible from Ext.P6 dated 30/07/2012, whereby the first respondent was alerted of the actual qualification prescribed and also to complete the steps for appointment by appointing a qualified candidate and to report the matter. It was accordingly, that the Panchayat replied vide Ext.P7 dated 13/08/2012 that they have ordered to keep in abeyance of the service of the third respondent for the time being. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no dispute with regard to the qualification of the petitioner and in view of the credentials substantiated by the petitioner, she is entitled to be appointed in place

¶39

W.P.(C)No.23571/2012

¶40

¶41

of the third respondent, who is now found unqualified. Reliance is sought to be placed on the placement of the petitioner in Ext.P3 rank list at Serial No.2.

¶42

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

¶43

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, the appointment effected by the Panchayat has already been cancelled as per proceedings No.D1-3277/12/PAU dated 29.09.2012 of the District Programme Co-ordinator, who happens to be the District Collector. A copy of the said order has also been placed for consideration before this Court. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submits that, by virtue of the said order, the service of the third respondent has been put an end to and the Panchayat is proceeding with further steps for completing the selection in tune with the direction given by the District Programme Co-ordinator as above.

¶44

The question to be considered is whether the petitioner can claim to be appointed as a matter of right, as stated by the Panchayat. There is no dispute that, the petitioner applied for the post in response

¶45

W.P.(C)No.23571/2012

¶46

¶47

to the information as to the availability of the vacancy as it appeared in the daily dated 10/04/2012 ( produced as Ext.P1) wherein, the qualification prescribed for the post of Overseer was Civil Engineering Diploma or ITC (Civil). But on going through the actual norms, vide Ext.P4, the qualification is 'Degree or Diploma' and not ITC ( Civil). The fact that the Degree is also a qualification for applying for the post was never notified to the general public as per Ext.P1. Further, Ext.P1 does not constitute an advertisement, but a news item. In view of the defective advertisement or publication, the candidates, who are having Degree, could not apply for the post. The selection has to be conducted in the manner as directed by the District Programme Co-ordinator as per his order dated 29.09.2012, also conforming to the relevant norms as specified in Ext.P4. The said order passed by the District Programme Co-ordinator reveals that the Interview Board has to be constituted with the members like the Grama Panchayat President, Secretary, one Standing Committee Chairman and Subject Expert (LSGD Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer). As per the information furnished to the petitioner under the RTI Act by way of

¶48

W.P.(C)No.23571/2012

¶49

¶50

Ext.P8, it appears that Committee, who conducted the interview, as given at paragraph 3, was not constituted in conformity with the specifications given by the District Programme Co-ordinator in the above order and probably, it is for this reason that a proper Committee was ordered to be constituted, while cancelling the appointment given to the third respondent.

¶51

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the main grievance of the petitioner with regard to the appointment given to the third respondent stands already redressed in view of the cancellation of the said appointment. The selection has to be conducted by the first respondent after notifying the post with sufficient publicity and in tune with the direction given by the District Programme Co-ordinator as per his order dated 29.09.2012. Considering the fact that, it is likely to take some time and also in view of the fact that, but for the wrong selection of the third respondent to the post in question, the petitioner at Serial No.2, being a qualified hand would have appointed, this Court directs the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on a 'provisional basis' till the selection proceedings as ordered by the

¶52

W.P.(C)No.23571/2012

¶53

¶54

District Programme Co-ordinator are finalised . The engagement as above will not confer any other rights upon the petitioner, than to continue in the post on a provisional basis till the proceedings are finalised as directed by the concerned authority. The selection proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open for the petitioner also to participate in such selection process.

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶56

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶57

sv.

¶58

W.P.(C)No.23571/2012 7

Sheema.S v. Edcavanakkad Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheema.S v. Edcavanakkad Grama Panchayat

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

C.a.Vincent Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Resmi.v. Vs the Kerala State Sports Council

M.Abdul Jabbar Vs the State of Kerala and Others

The Manager Vs the Government of Kerala

The Manager, Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs Malabar Devaswom Board