Dismissed

Priyanka v.K., v. Lisha M.D.

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019OP(KAT)/316/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed two original petitions challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order in a sports recruitment dispute. The court held the Tribunal's interim order was final, rejected the argument to count a 2008 championship event for 2009 grading, and denied independent claims. Relief: Dismissed Original Petitions. Quality: ok.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the original petitions filed by Priyanka V.K. and the State of Kerala.

Priyanka v.K., Vs Lisha M.D. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.316 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1235/2015 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

PRIYANKA V.K., AGED 28 YEARS PRIYANKA V.K., SURAJ BHAVAN, KURINCHALIODE P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 542. 673542

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.PAREETH MOHAMMED SHAMEEL AASHIQUE AKTHAR HAJJIGOTHI

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 LISHA M.D., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. DEVASSY, MANDY HOUSE, CHETTIKULAM P.O., CHALAKKUDY - 680 721, THRISSUR, KERALA 680721

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICE-D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

¶15

3 BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA NO.14, SAGAR APARTMENT, 6 TILAK MARG, OPP.TILAK MARG POLICE STATION, NEW DELHI - 110 001,

¶16

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶17

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL, KERALA.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶22

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).439/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶30

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶31

OP(KAT).No.439 OF 2018

¶32

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1235/2015 DATED 06-03-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶33

PETITIONER/S:

¶34

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE (SERVICESD)DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶35

SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶36

RESPONDENT/S:

¶37

1 LISHA M.D. AGED 23 YEARS D/O.DEVASSY,MANDY HOUSE,CHETTIKULAM.P.O, CHELAKKUDY,PIN-680721,THRISSUR.

¶38

2 PRIYANKA.V.K THAYYIL HOUSE,NARIPATTA.P.O,KALLACHI VIA,KOZHIKODE.

¶39

3 BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA NO.14,SAGAR APARTMENT,6 TILAK MARG,OPP.TILAK

¶40

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶41

¶42

MARG POLICE STATION, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL.

¶43

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR R3 BY ADV. R.V.SREEJITH

¶44

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN

¶45

FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).316/2018,

¶46

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

¶48

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

V.G.Arun, J.

¶51

The cause of action for this long drawn litigation is the simultaneous attempt by two sports persons from the same discipline (basket ball) to secure appointment in Government service based on their achievements. The facts are narrated in brief hereunder, with reference to the parties and the Exhibits as in the original application:-

¶52

The Government had, vide Annexure A1 notification dated 4.9.2010, invited applications for appointment in the State Government service from Sports persons having the prescribed achievements in Sports/Games in specified disciplines during the calender year 2006-2008 and 2009. Lisha M.D, the original applicant and Priyanka V.K, the second respondent in the original application, submitted applications

¶53

¶54

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶55

in answer to Annexure A1 notification. Lisha had the following achievements to her credit:- (i) participation in the 59^th Senior National Basket Ball Championship held at Surat in Gujarat from 31.12.2008 to 7.1.2009 (ii) member of the Mahatma Gandhi University Basket Ball Team which secured third position in All India Inter University Basket Ball (W) Tournament held at M.G.University from 11.12.2009 to 19.12.2009 (iii) participation in the 68^th National Basket Ball Championship held at Ludhiyana in Punjab from 27.12.2009 to 3.1.2010. Priyanka's credentials are:- (i) participation in the 59^th Senior National Basket Ball Championship held at Surat in Gujarat from 31.12.2008 to 7.1.2009 and (ii) Participation in the 68^th National Basket Ball Championship held at Ludhiyana in Punjab from 27.12.2009 to 3.1.2010. Based on the achievements, Lisha and Priyanka ought to have been graded in the following manner for the purpose of

¶56

¶57

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶58

selection and appointment. Lisha (i) 43T (ii) 46T and (iii) 43T. Priyanka (i) 43T and (iii) 43T. When Annexure A5 select list was published, Priyanka was awarded with 43T and 43T and placed second in the main list, whereas Lisha was given 43T and 46T grades and included in the reserve list. Aggrieved by non-consideration of all three of her achievements, Priyanka filed O.A.No.15 of 2012. The Government, in its reply before the Tribunal, submitted that Lisha had not made any claim for selection based on her participation in the 59^th Senior National Basket Ball Championship(59^th Nationals) and that the certificate of participation in the 59^th Nationals produced in the O.A as Annexure A2 was not even appended to the application. In the face of that submission, the applicant amended the pleadings and contended that the 59^th Nationals was with respect to the year 2008 and therefore, the 43T grading granted to Priyanka

¶59

¶60

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶61

based on her participation in that Championship was impermissible. It was contended that the applicant having not produced and claimed grading based on her participation in the 59^th Nationals was of no consequence and Priyanka's grading for participation in the 59^th Nationals should be deleted. In support of her contention, Lisha produced Annexure A7 Event Calender published by the Basket Ball Federation of India, in which the 59^th Nationals was shown as an event of the year 2008.

¶62

After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal

¶63

observed that, there was no indication in Annexure A1 as to whether a Championship, which spilled over two years, could be reckoned as the Championship of one particular year or of both the years. Based on its observations, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.15 of 2012 vide Annexure A8 order, in the following manner:-

¶64

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶65

¶66

“9. …....Going by the general principles stated in Annexure A1, in the absence of any specific indication in it, Annexure A2 cannot be taken into account because it is an event of 2008 which started in 2008 also. If the stand of the first respondent is correct, Annexure A4 can be used for selection in the years 2009 and 2010 as the championship was held from 27.12.2009 and 3.1.2010. Annexure A4 has already been reckoned for 2009. Similarly, Annexure A2 can be used for 2008 and 2009. So, the same will result in one certificate being used for two years. Such an interpretation is absurd. So, the first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant and the second respondent for inclusion in the select list. The said respondent shall decide whether the 2008 Championship which spilled over into 2009 should be reckoned for the selection of 2009. If the decision is that it cannot be reckoned, then excluding that qualification the ranking has to be rearranged. If it is decided that the same can also be reckoned, in that event, Annexure A2 certificate of the applicant shall also be taken into account.

¶67

10. In the result, the selection of the second respondent in Annexure A5 in preference to the applicant is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh decision as to who should be included in the main list from among them in the light of the observation made by us herein above within six seeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the decision is in favour of the applicant, needless to say, she shall be appointed in the place of the second respondent.

¶68

The Original Application is allowed as above.”

¶69

In purported compliance of the direction in

¶70

Annexure A8, the Government issued Annexure A9 order,

¶71

stating that Annexure A5 was already revised and fresh select

¶72

¶73

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶74

list published as per Annexure A10 order dated 31.12.2013. The Government therefore justified its stand taken in the reply statement and additional reply statement filed in the original application and opined that the stand taken by the Government cannot be changed arbitrarily as it will pave way for unending litigations. Based on this concocted reasoning, the Government upheld the inclusion of Priyanka in the main list and her appointment as per order dated 2.6.2012.

¶75

The subject original application was filed by Lisha seeking to (i) set aside Annexures A5, A9 and A10, (ii) for a direction to place her at serial No.2, in the main list under the discipline Basket Ball in Annexure A5 and A10 and (iii) cancel the appointment of Priyanka and to appoint Lisha in her place. The Tribunal considered the challenge against Annexure A9 order and found that the Government had refused to consider Lisha's claim as directed in Annexure A8, and instead, had

¶76

¶77

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶78

reiterated its earlier stand which was found unacceptable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further found that no opportunity was afforded to Lisha to produce Annexure A2. Based on the findings, the Tribunal set aside Annexures A5, A9 and A10, to the extent it excluded Lisha and included Priyanaka in the select list. Finding that Annexure A8 order had become final,

¶79

the Tribunal permitted the applicant to produce a copy of Annexure A2 certificate before the Government along with

¶80

copy of the Tribunal's order and directed the Government to pass fresh orders in terms of the directions in Annexure A8.

¶81

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, Priyanka has

¶82

filed O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2018 and the State of Kerala, O.P. (KAT) No.439 of 2018.

¶83

Though various contentions are raised assailing the

¶84

findings in Annexure A9 order of the Tribunal, we find that the challenge against the findings in Annexure A8 order having

¶85

¶86

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶87

attained finality, and Annexure A9 being a mere reiteration of those findings with insistence to comply with the directions therein, a second challenge against Annexure A8, in the guise of challenging Annexure A9 cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the contention that the 59^th Nationals of the year 2008 should be reckoned for the purpose of grading, based on the achievements of the year 2009. It is specified in Annexure A1 notification that the achievements during the calender years 2006-2008 and 2009 alone will be considered for appointment. Both Lisha and Priyanka having submitted applications for appointment based on their achievements for the calender year 2009, an event pertaining to the calender year 2008 should not have been reckoned for the purpose of grading. Annexure A7 Calender of Events published by the Basket Ball Federation of India shows that the 59^th Senior National Basket Ball Championship was an

¶88

¶89

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶90

event of 2008. The so called clarification obtained from the Secretary, Basket Ball Federation of India, that the National

¶91

Championships are conducted on the basis of financial year and not calender year does not alter the position, in view of the specification in Annexure A1 notification that the event should be of that particular calender year. Otherwise, the specious position will be, both 59^th and 60^th Nationals being conducted in the beginning and at the end of 2009 and reckoned as tournaments of 2009, as has been done in the case of Priyanaka.

¶92

Grading of sports persons based on such skewed reasoning would defeat the very purpose of providing employment to sports persons, as an acknowledgement of their achievements and as a motivation to excel even more. Be that as it may, the Tribunal having afforded an opportunity

¶93

to Lisha to produce Annexure A2 certificate and having

¶94

¶95

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶96

directed the Government to consider the certificate for the purpose of grading, based on the directions in Annexure A8, the official respondents are bound to act in accordance with the directions.

¶97

Sri.P.M.Pareeth, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2018 submits that Priyanka had secured appointment by virtue of her position in the select list for the years 2006-2008, but had forgone that appointment as she had already been appointed pursuant to Annexure A5. It is submitted that Priyanka is in service at the Directorate of Panchayats from 10.10.2012 and equity demands that her appointment is not interfered with. It is submitted that Priyanka may be permitted to stake her claim for the appointment of 2006-2008, as she will be left jobless

¶98

on being thrown out in terms of Annexure A9. We find no reason to grant any such permission, since it is for Priyanka to

¶99

¶100

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶101

stake claim for appointment based on her selection for 200608, in accordance with law.

¶102

In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, dismiss the original petitions. No order as to costs.

¶103

Sd/-

¶104

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/ 6.12 x

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶109

¶110

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 316/2018

¶111

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶112

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2018 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1235/2013.

¶113

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1235/2015 DATED 12/12/2015.

¶114

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 04/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶115

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING PARTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT IN SENIOR NATIONAL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.

¶116

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING PARTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT IN ALL INTER UNIVERSITY BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT.

¶117

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING PARTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT IN 60TH NATIONAL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.

¶118

ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO DATED 02/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶119

ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST ANNEXURE A5.

¶120

ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EVENT CALENDER

¶121

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶122

¶123

	OF THE BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA FOR DIFFERENT YEARS.
ANNEXURE A8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/05/2015 IN OA NO.15/2012.
ANNEXURE A9	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO DATED 30/07/2015.
ANNEXURE A10	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO DATED 31/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 18/01/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19/06/2017 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE O.A.
EXHIBIT P4 A	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS LD CLERK UNDER 2009 SELECTION.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RANKED LIST FOR 2006-08 ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.03.2011.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE G.O. (MS.) NO. 40/2013/GAD DATED 16.02.2013 APPOINTING SMT. VEENA RAVI MATHEW.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 30.09.20183 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶124

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶125

¶126

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 439/2018

¶127

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶128

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO. (EKM)NO.1235/2015 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO A10 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶129

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 04/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶130

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE SHOWING PARTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT IN SENIOR NATIONAL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.

¶131

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE SHOWING PARTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT IN ALL INDIA INTER UNIVERSITY BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT.

¶132

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE SHOWING PARTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT IN 60'S NATIONAL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.

¶133

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 02/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶134

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST ANNEXURE A5.

¶135

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE EVENT CALENDER OF THE BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA FOR DIFFERENT YEARS.

¶136

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/05/2015 IN

¶137

OP(KAT) 316 & 439 of 2018

¶138

¶139

OA 15/2012.

¶140

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 30/07/2015. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 31/12/2013.

¶141

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 21.O6.2017 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION

¶142

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 18.01.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

¶143

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 18.10.2017 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶144

EXHIBIT P5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.03.2018.

Priyanka v.K., v. Lisha M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka v.K., v. Lisha M.D.

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

Union of India Vs B.Sudheer Kumar

B.Sudheer Kumar Vs the General Manager

V.S.Sreeja, Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Jain George

State of Kerala Vs Latha.P.C

Joseph Febin Vs State of Kerala