High Court of Kerala held a petitioner ranked 11 in a joint venture recruitment is entitled to consideration for appointment if a forceage vacancy arises due to fraud by a higher-ranked candidate, denying closure of the original list.
Petitioner to be considered for appointment in the next arising vacancy in the post of Tapping/General Worker Supervisor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26339 of 2012 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
RAJAMALAR, AGED 42, W/O. NATARAJAN, REG. NO. 5040, REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED, AYIRANALLOOR ESTATE, UNIT I, P.O. PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED, PUNALUR - 691 305, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3. THE MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION), THE REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED, PUNALUR - 691 305, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.V. ANANDAN R2 & 3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 26339 of 2012 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/12/2008.
EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PASSPORT.
EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/06/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE COMPANY TO MR. PACKIYANATHAN
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
W.P.(C).No.26339/2012
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was included in the rank list prepared for the post of Tapping/General Worker Supervisor of the second respondent-company. This company is a joint venture of the Government of India and Government of Kerala. The petitioner was ranked 11. By Ext.P3 proceedings dated 5.12.2008, 10 persons were selected considering the vacancy at the relevant point of time. The 10th person is Sri.Packyanathan. Since there were no other vacancies, the petitioner was not considered for the post. However, the appointment of Sri.Packyanathan was interfered by the company on a finding that he obtained appointment by committing fraud by showing wrong date of birth. Sri.Packyanathan was removed from the service on 3/8/2010. The petitioner now raised a claim to be appointed in the vacancy created consequent upon removal of Sri.Packyanathan.
WPC 26339/2012
-:2:-
the year 2011-2012. It is further stated that the petitioner had taken part in the subsequent process for selection and that she was unsuccessful. It is therefore, submitted that all the vacancies have been filled and no vacancies are available with the company to give employment to the petitioner.
WPC 26339/2012
-:3:-
raising claim for appointment. It is true that there was a subsequent notification and the petitioner had taken part in that process for selection but that would not deny the petitioner from getting an appointment as she was denied on account of the fraud committed by another candidate in the selection process. When laches on the part of the petitioner is made against denial of appointment, the court must attempt to strike a balance. Laches is not so grave so as to defeat the right of a candidate included in the notification. The background of such a candidate is also to be considered while addressing the issue related to laches. The petitioner only passed Std.VIII and she is a Srilankan repatriate. Ignorance as to the formalities and about their right cannot hold against such person. Deprivation of the deprived is not the end of law but emancipation of the deprived is the end of law. In that scenario, this court is of the view that certainly the petitioner is entitled to succeed. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that there are no vacancies to accommodate the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner should be considered only if there are vacancies as the second respondent company shall not be put with any additional burden on account of the fraud committed by another candidate.
WPC 26339/2012
-:4:-
directions:
The petitioner shall be considered for appointment in the next arising
vacancy in the post of Tapping/General Worker Supervisor. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment in a vacancy created due to the removal of a fraudulently appointed candidate.
Whether the petitioner can be compulsorily appointed despite the exhaustion of the original rank list.
Whether laches bars the claim of a disqualified candidate who passed out the selection process.
RAJAMALAR
STATE OF KERALA
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED
THE MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION), THE REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED
A.MUHAMAD MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court