Allowed

Dr.Nicky K Xavier v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2017WA/396/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a batch of Writ Appeals against a Single Judge order that set aside a recruitment selection list for Scientist B and E-1 posts. The High Court found the Lower Court failed to hear affected selected employees, set aside the impugned order, and remanded matters for reconsideration ensuring natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Appellate Writ Appeals allowed; Single Judge order dated 19.12.2016 set aside; matters remanded for fresh proceedings ensuring natural justice.

Dr.Nicky K Xavier Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/10TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶7

WA.No. 396 of 2017 () IN WP(C).5663/2016

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5663/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-12-2016

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

DR.NICKY K XAVIER, KOLLANNUR HOUSE, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR PIN-680022

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶12

SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶15

THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT REPRESENTE DBY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695004

¶16

THE KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PEECHI, THRISSUR PIN-680653

¶17

THE DIRECTOR,KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR PIN-680653

¶18

DR. P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. P.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT PEROTH HOUSE, PALAKKALVETTA PO., TUVVUR, MALAPPURAM

¶19

DR. K.S.ANOOP DAS, ANUPALLAVI, KARUMAMPOYIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA POST, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA PIN-679334

¶20

*R7. SHIJO JOSEPH, S/O.SRI.VARKEY JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, SCIENTIST E-1 (REMOT SENSING), KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.3/8, KFRI QUARTERS, PEECHI, THIRSSUR – 680 653.

¶21

ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.7 IS ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.6.2017 IN I.A.NO.763/2017.

¶22

WA.No. 396 of 2017 () IN WP(C).5663/2016 :2:

¶23

R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF R2 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKE, SC R3-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT, SC SRI.S.M.PREM R5 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ R6 BY ADVS. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.JOSELAL GEORGE SMT.KAMALAKSHY KYLASANATH RADDL.. BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2017, ALONG WITH WA. 928/2017, WA. 1056/2017, WA. 1109/2017, WA. 1148/2017, WA. 1149/2017, WA. 1191/2017, WA. 1192/2017, WA. 1193/2017, WA. 1194/2017, WA. 1195/2017, WA. 1196/2017, WA. 1197/2017, WA. 1204/2017, WA. 1234/2017, WA. 1235/2017, WA. 1259/2017, WA. 1260/2017, WA. 1261/2017, WA. 1331/2017, WA.1627/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WA.No. 396 of 2017 () IN WP(C).5663/2016

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶28

ANNEXURE A-1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON 25.2.2016

¶29

ANNEXURE A-2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 24.2.2016 ISSUE TO DR.SHIJO JOSEPH AS SCIENTIST E-1 IN THE BRANCH OF REMOTE SENSING

¶30

ANNEXURE A-3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 29.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶31

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶36

W.A.Nos.396, 928, 1056, 1109, 1148,

¶37

1149, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1204, 1234, 1235, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1331 & 1627 of 2017

¶38

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2017

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶41

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the intervenor, who have intervened with leave of this Court, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment as well as the learned counsel for the Kerala Forest Research Institute and with their consent, we are disposing of this group of writ appeals at this stage itself.

¶42

2.The issue relates to recruitment of Scientist - B and Scientist E - 1 in the Kerala Forest Research Institute, a premier institute lying virtually closed for want of Research Scientists. This recruitment process was for 20 posts of Scientist B and

¶43

5 posts of Scientist E - 1. It may be noted that initially advertisements were issued in the year 2012, but then the

¶44

W.A.Nos.396 of 2017 and con.cases

¶45

¶46

selection process was aborted. In 2013, it was re-advertised and it was again aborted. In the year 2015, it was reinitiated. Amidst various allegations and counter allegations, the selection process was carried out and a select list was published. Some people were already issued with appointment letters and were working. There were challenges before this Court. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 19.12.2016 allowed the writ petitions and set aside the entire select list. These appeals are from that judgment.

¶47

3.The learned Single Judge noticed various controversies but, merely noticing in paragraph 10 that there were admitted irregularities in the selection process conducted pursuant to 2015 notification, held that the selection conducted pursuant to the said notification cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge further held that this is more so in view of the fact that the institute itself took a stand that the entire selection has to be conducted afresh. Holding thus, the entire selection process was set aside and the institute was directed to re-notify the vacancies of Scientists in various grades in the various departments of the Institute and to

¶48

W.A.Nos.396 of 2017 and con.cases

¶49

¶50

conduct a fresh selection in accordance with law. The persons who had applied pursuant to the 2012, 2013 and 2015 notifications were allowed to participate in the selection process after updating their applications, if found necessary. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not notice that all the parties selected were not before it. For apart from parties who were selected and had not yet joined, some had already received their appointment letters and had already started working. They were not even made parties, much less heard. What was the irregularity and in what manner the selection process was vitiated were also not noted. Merely because the institute which conducted the examination took a view that the process was vitiated could not by itself be a ground to interfere in the matter much less in the manner as has been done.

¶51

4.Considering that affected parties were not heard, the reason for interference and the grounds thereof having not been stated, we are left with no option but to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remand all the matters for reconsideration afresh. It would be advisable that the learned Single Judge ensures that all affected parties are

¶52

W.A.Nos.396 of 2017 and con.cases

¶53

¶54

made parties to the writ petition wherein their selection and/ or appointment are challenged and after notice to them, the matter be heard and disposed of.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid, these appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2016 is set aside and all the matters including similar matters are remanded back to the learned Single Judge to be decided in accordance with law and the observations as made above. Any action taken or proposed to be taken pursuant to the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge would thus stand cancelled. We would request the learned Single Judge to consider the matter at an early date so that the institute becomes functional.

¶56

Sd/- NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶58

AV/2/8

Dr.Nicky K Xavier v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Nicky K Xavier v. State of Kerala

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

Mini John.C Vs Sri.C.Unniappu

The Authorised Officer Vs Kunjumon .M

SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sri.M.G.Venu

Athletics Federation of India Vs Chitra P.U

K.D. Sebastian Vs Laju P.V.

The Vice Chancellor, Kannur University Vs Fr. Joseph Antony