Dismissed

Jabir V.S. v. the Deputy General Manager (Hr)

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/35856/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the appointment of internal candidates over an external candidate. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to examine candidate suitability based on subjective performance claims in the absence of established malafides, illegality, or irregularity. The impugned selection order was upheld, and the petitioner was directed not to be prejudiced

What did the court decide?

The impugned notification (Ext.P6) appointing internal candidates is upheld and the petitioner is directed that no prejudice be caused in future applications.

Jabir V.S. Vs the Deputy General Manager (Hr) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 35856 of 2010 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JABIR V.S., AGED 28 YEARS,

¶8

S/O.V.K.SHAMSUDHIN, VETTIKATTU HOUSE, NETTUR P.O., VIA MARADU, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, KOCHI-15

¶12

2. SHRI KIRAN S RAJ, WORKING IN COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, KOCHI-15 AND PRESENTLY SELECTED FOR APPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT MANAGER E-1 GRADE(ELECTRONICS), KOCHI-15.

¶13

3. SHRI SUMESH V., WORKING IN COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, KOCHI-15 AND PRESENTLY SELECTED FOR APPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT MANAGER E -1 GRADE(ELECTRONICS), KOCHI-15.

¶14

4. THE COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOCHI-15.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 35856 of 2010 (F)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT. P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, TECHNOLOGIES.	RIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SEPERATIONS TEAM, WIPRO

¶22

EXT. P2 : TRUE AWARD WIPRO	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF FEATHER - IN- MY CAP GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PROJECT MANAGER, TECHNOLOGIES.
EXT. P3 : TRUE DATED (HR),	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.P&A/18(176)/10 28.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED.
EXT. P4 : TRUE DATED (HR),	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&A/18(176)/10 26.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED.
EXT. P5 : TRUE DATED (HR),	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&A/18(176)/10 6.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED.
EXT. P6 : TRUE DATED (HR),	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.P&A/18(176)/10 16.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶28

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35856 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner aspired to be as an Assistant Manager E-1 Grade (Electronics) in the Cochin Shipyard Limited. He applied for the post pursuant to the notification that was issued by the Cochin Shipyard inviting candidates for a written test and interview for being appointed to the said post.

¶32

Essentially the case of the petitioner is that even though he performed extremely well in the written test as well as in the interview, he was not selected because the respondents preferred those candidates who were already serving the organisation in other posts. It is his contention that “no reasonable man” could have found him unsuitable for selection. On such allegations, he wants the selections made to be set aside and he has also sought for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to appoint him and to ensure that the internal candidates did not get any undue preference.

¶33

I have heard Mr.R.Sreeraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and, Smt.Mariam Mathai and Sri.Saji Varghese, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶34

W.P.(C)No.35856/10

¶35

:-2-:

¶36

This writ petition has been filed as early as in 2010. I see that the petitioner has not been able to obtain any interim order from this Court. It is obvious that the persons who were appointed under the impugned selection order, which is appended to this writ petition as Ext.P6, would have already been appointed and are probably serving. The petitioners allege that respondents 2 and 3 are the persons selected under Ext.P6 and that they have been appointed in preference to him.

¶37

Going by the averments and allegations contained in the writ petition, it is obvious that the petitioner claims that he is a better suited candidate and that he, therefore, ought to have been appointed and not respondents 2 and 3. It is rather perspicuous that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to examine the suitability or otherwise of a candidate who participated in a selection process, on the allegation that he has done better than the others. This is a notion that every candidate would possibly harbour on the self-confidence that he is absolutely suitable and that the others are possibly inferior to him. It is impossible that any jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised based on such allegations and averments, in the

¶38

W.P.(C)No.35856/10

¶39

:-3-:

¶40

absence of any established malafides or any illegality or irregularity in the method or manner of the appointment that has been made by the Cochin Shipyard. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P6 in any manner and the same is upheld.

¶41

However, it is made clear that, if there are any further vacancies and that the petitioner intends to appear for any such selection in future, none of the matters that has been raised in this writ petition or the observations made in this judgment shall be held against him and he shall be considered if he makes such an application in accordance with law and in terms of the appointment notifications.

¶42

In the nature of the circumstances and facts of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶43

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶46

ami/10.11.16

¶47

//True copy//

¶48

P.A.to Judge

Jabir V.S. v. the Deputy General Manager (Hr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabir V.S. v. the Deputy General Manager (Hr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.P.Augustine Vs State

P.Vijayakumar Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Cochin Cadalas Private Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer

Sophia A.S Vs Union of India

B.v.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

V.Balaraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala