Dismissed

Ushakumari .L. v. Santhakumari .T

Kerala HC9 Dec 2019OP(KAT)/514/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on a petition filed against an Administrative Tribunal order setting aside a selection, held that a deserted wife qualifies for the open priority category for destitute women and that the Tribunal’s interpretation of educational qualifications was logical. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

All reliefs sought in the original petition were dismissed. No order as to costs.

Ushakumari .L. Vs Santhakumari .T — 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

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.514 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 126/2016 DATED 26-06-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/S:

USHAKUMARI .L.

AGED 54 YEARS

D/O. LEELAKUMARI, VADAKKEKUNNUMPURAM VEEDU, PUTHEN COTTAI, TC 41/771, KURIATHY, MANACAUD P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.G.SUDHEER SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 SANTHAKUMARI .T SIVA BHAVANAM, AUVANCODE, OORUTTAMBALAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695507.

¶17

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

3 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 011.

¶19

4 THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

¶20

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶21

¶22

5 RADHAKRISHNAN V. LAKSHMI VILASAM, ALAMCODE LANE, PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 011.

¶23

6 MOHAMMED HANEEFA A. MALAYATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, AZHIKODE, CHEKKAKONAM, KARAKULAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 564.

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶26

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶27

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2019

¶32

V.G.Arun, J.

¶33

The petitioner was the fourth respondent in O.A.No.126 of 2016 filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the selection and appointment to the post of Part-time Sweeper in the Medical Education Department from among the Employment Exchange registrants. The brief facts, as narrated in the original application, with reference to the parties and the documents therein, are as follows:-

¶34

The applicant, who had registered with the District Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram on 26.4.1982, was called for an interview for appointment on casual basis as Part-time Sweeper in the Medical Education Department. As directed in Annexure A3 call letter, the applicant appeared for the interview. Out of the three vacancies, to which

¶35

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶36

¶37

appointment was to be effected, one vacancy was set apart for Muslim priority category, one in open priority and the third in the non-priority category. The open priority category was for unmarried women, widows, legally divorced women, wife of missing persons etc. The applicant being a woman deserted by her husband for more than 20 years, as evidenced by Annexure A5 certificate, was included in the open priority category. Based on her performance in the interview, age and seniority at the employment exchange, the applicant was optimistic of being selected and appointed. But, contrary to her expectation, she was not appointed and as per Annexure A6, she was appointed in the open priority category. The original application was thereupon filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶38

(i) Issue a direction or order to set aside Annexure A6.

¶39

(ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be selected to the post of part time sweeper. (iii) Issue such other directions or orders as this

¶40

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶41

¶42

Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. “

¶43

The official respondents filed a statement before

¶44

the Tribunal wherein it was submitted that the marks in the selection process was awarded under the following parameters. (i) 5 marks for educational qualification. The qualification prescribed being standard VIII to X with the rider that candidates having qualification above SSLC would not be selected. (ii) Age up to 35 years; and for every completed year above 35- half additional marks per year subject to maximum 10. (iii) Employment registration seniority for every completed year- one mark subject to maximum of 10. (iv) previous experience in Health Department- one mark per year subject to maximum of 10 (v) special category (widow, physically handicapped, dependents of army men - 5 marks); however, the percentage of handicapped should not exceed 20% and (vi) interview - 10 marks. Thus, the aggregate marks

¶45

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶46

¶47

for selection and appointment was fixed at 50, out of which, the applicant obtained 35½ marks and was rank No.2, the first rank holder having secured 36 marks. As per the statement, both the applicant and the first rank holder were disqualified since they had passed SSLC, and the fourth respondent, who was the third rank holder was appointed.

¶48

The Tribunal found that as per the Special Rules for the Part-time contingent service, the qualification prescribed for appointment as Part-time Sweeper is 'good physique' and that the Government could not have prescribed a further qualification, which was at variance with the special rules, through an executive order. Having found so, the Tribunal did not interfere with the Government order, in the absence of challenge in the original application. The Tribunal found that the educational qualification prescribed in the notification was VIII to X with the further condition that the candidates

¶49

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶50

¶51

should not have qualification above SSLC. This being the condition, the Tribunal held that pass in SSLC was not a disqualification for selection and hence, the rejection of the applicant's candidature, in spite of securing second rank, was illegal. Consequently, it was held that the selection and appointment of the fourth respondent, who was the third rank holder, was bad. The official respondents were hence directed to call for willingness from rank holders 1 and 2, included in the select list for open priority category pursuant to the interview held on 6.8.2015 and 7.8.2015, and to issue consequential orders as per their willingness and rank in the select list.

¶52

The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction in the impugned order since it would result in her appointment pursuant to Annexure A6 being cancelled. The ground of challenge is twofold; (i) the applicant being a deserted wife

¶53

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶54

¶55

does not qualify for inclusion in the open priority category which is meant for spinsters/widows/legally divorced persons/wife of missing persons etc. and (ii) the finding of the Tribunal that pass in SSLC will come within the category of educational standard VIII to X is against law and logic.

¶56

As far as the first contention is concerned, it has to be considered that the objective behind providing priority is to support destitute women. The usage of the abbreviation 'etc' after spinsters/widows/legally divorced persons/wife of missing persons indicates that similarly placed women could also be included in the open priority category. Annexure A5 certificate issued by the Tahasildar shows that the applicant was deserted by her husband 20 years back and that she has not remarried. In such circumstances, the applicant is definitely a destitute woman entitled to be included in the open priority category. Therefore, the first ground of

¶57

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶58

¶59

challenge fails.

¶60

The specification with regard to the educational qualification being standard VIII to X, with the clarification that candidates having qualification above SSLC would not be selected, the finding of the Tribunal that there cannot be any disqualification for the candidates who have passed SSLC does not defy logic or reason and on the other hand is the only possible interpretation. Therefore, the second ground of challenge is also repelled.

¶61

In the result, the original petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶62

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶63

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶64

Scl/9.12 x

¶65

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶66

¶67

APPENDIX

¶68

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶69

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANACAUD DATED 21.5.2015 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1/2483/2015/C.N.T. DATED 4.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT NURSING COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E4/31313(2)/2017/DME DATED 11.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MEDICAL EDUCATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.126/2016 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22.1.2016.

¶70

EXHIBIT P4 (A1) TRUE COPY OF S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED FROM THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE. EXHIBIT P4 (A3) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E4/26324/2014/DME DATED 27.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION. EXHIBIT P4 (A4) TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, CHERAMANTHURUTH DATED 25.4.2015.

¶71

O.P.(KAT) 514 of 2019

¶72

¶73

EXHIBIT P4 (A5) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYINKEEZHU TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2015. EXHIBIT P4 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4/26824/2014/MED DATED 12.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.6.2019 IN O.A.NO.126/2016 PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶74

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NO.E4/19698/2016/MED DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

Ushakumari .L. v. Santhakumari .T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ushakumari .L. v. Santhakumari .T

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 Jain George

State of Kerala Vs Latha.P.C

Joseph Febin Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Salim Babu Vs General Manager Telecom

V.Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs S.Krishnakumar