Dismissed

N.B.Mani v. the Fisheries Deputy Registrar and Others

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016WA/770/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed. Court upheld Single Judge's order dismissing petitioner's appeal against the dismissal of her writ petition seeking appointment as Attender. The Board cancelled the selection process initiated by the earlier Secretary (petitioner's husband) due to apparent impropriety.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as there was no error in the judgment of the Single Judge. No direction to conduct interview or appoint petitioner was granted.

N.B.Mani Vs the Fisheries Deputy Registrar and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 770 of 2014 ()

¶6

--------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 10024/2013 DATED 08-04-2014) ---------------------

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C) :

¶8

N.B.MANI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.SASIDHARAN, MOONNAMKUTTU HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) :

¶11

1. THE FISHERIES DEPUTY REGISTRAR, FISHERIES DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

2. THE FISHERIES ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, FISHERIES ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 566

¶13

3. THE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, CHAVAKKAD.P.O., PIN-680 506

¶14

4. NATTIKA ENGANDIYOOR MATSYA THOZHILALI VIKASANA KSHEMA

¶15

SAHAKARANA SANGHAM NO.F(R)18/87 CZ,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NATTIKA.P.O.,

¶17

THRISSUR, PIN-680 566.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &

¶22

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.770 of 2014

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of February 2016

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Ashok Bhushan, CJ

¶26

This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08/04/2014 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the 4^th respondent to conduct an interview based on the written test conducted on 02/09/2012 in the post of Attender and appoint the eligible person from the rank list. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that she submitted an application for the post of Attender and she received a letter dated 13/08/2012 to participate in the written test scheduled to be conducted on 02/09/2012. Petitioner participated in the test, but no interview was conducted nor any rank list was prepared. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation on 25/03/2013 and reference to Ext.P4 order has also been made wherein the 2^nd respondent gave a direction to the 4^th respondent to take appropriate steps.

¶27

W.A.No.770/2014

¶28

¶29

Counter affidavit was filed by the 4^th respondent in the writ petition wherein it was stated that petitioner's husband was the Secretary of the Society and new committee took charge on 15/05/2013 and on 17/05/2013, a new Secretary was also elected. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been clearly stated that the Board took a decision to cancel the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1.

¶30

The learned Single Judge heard the parties and dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner did not disclose that she is the wife of the earlier Secretary, who had issued an intimation letter to the petitioner to appear for the written test. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has come up in this writ appeal.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the process having been initiated for conducting selection, the same ought to have been completed and the rank list prepared. It is submitted that the respondents acted arbitrarily in not completing the selection process.

¶32

In the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that the selection process initiated by Ext.P1 letter has already been

¶33

W.A.No.770/2014

¶34

¶35

decided to cancel by the Board of Directors. Hence the process, having never been completed, there is no question of preparing a rank list nor giving any appointment to the eligible candidate.

¶36

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶37

In the writ petition, there is no mention that the petitioner is the wife of the earlier Secretary. Ext.P1 dated 13/08/2012 was issued to the petitioner to appear for written test on 02/09/2012 by none else other than her own husband who had signed the letter. Admittedly, after the written test, no further steps were taken and when the new committee took charge, a decision was taken to cancel the entire process. In the counter affidavit it has also been pleaded that the proceedings were initiated by Ext.P1 letter by the husband of the petitioner who favoured the petitioner. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, following was pleaded:

¶38

“8. It is submitted that in Exhibit R4(c), the meeting decided to discuss five matters which were included in the Agenda 1 to 5, in agenda No.2 the subject matter involved in the above case was discussed. The meeting dissolved that

¶39

W.A.No.770/2014

¶40

¶41

the earlier Secretary acted against the rules and delayed the appointment to the post of attender to make sure that he is no more in the post so that the appointment, thereafter, without any legal impediment. The undue influence and illegality in the matter of appointment to the post was found by the committee. The committee further decided that an enquiry to be conducted to the appointment to the post of attender and to enquire whether the earlier Secretary had acted in a manner unbecoming to his post for making favours to his own wife. This respondent and other board members were entrusted with such duty. It is respectfully submitted that the Director Board of the 4^th respondent Society found that the proceedings initiated by the earlier Secretary is by deviating from the guidelines, rules and norms, with a view to favour the petitioner who is his wife. Hence, the Board of Directors decided to cancel the proceedings initiated pursuant to Exhibit P1 and decided to institute a proceedings afresh for the appointment to the post of attender in accordance with rules.”

¶42

A decision, having been taken to cancel the entire process initiated by Ext.P1, no direction could have been issued in

¶43

W.A.No.770/2014

¶44

¶45

the writ petition, as prayed by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner was required to disclose the fact that she was the wife of the earlier Secretary, who had issued the call letter, which fact was concealed and has been stated only by the respondent in the counter affidavit.

¶46

We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeal and hence the same is dismissed.

¶47

(sd/-)

¶48

(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶49

True Copy PA to Judge

¶50

jsr/06/02/16

N.B.Mani v. the Fisheries Deputy Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.B.Mani v. the Fisheries Deputy Registrar 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

Geetha Vs M.C.John

Sreedharan Pillai Vs Saraswathi Amma

Thayyil Kumaran Vs State of Kerala and Others

Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

K. Praseeda Kumari Vs State Police Chief

Maniyamma Vs the Sub Inspector of Police