Allowed

K.S. Govindan Nair, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2020WP(C)/19153/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the selection process for Chairman of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board because the Selection Committee, after finding 17 candidates eligible, shortlisted only 8 using self-devised criteria. The court held that where selection was solely by interview, the Committee could not eliminate eligible candidates before interview.

What did the court decide?

Selection process set aside; direction to interview all eligible candidates in Ext.R1(c) and make fresh recommendation/nomination under Section 4(a); 4th respondent may continue provisionally for four

K.S. Govindan Nair, Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶6

WP(C).No.19153 OF 2020(T)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

K.S. GOVINDAN NAIR, T.C.NO 19/1965, KRRA-19,

¶9

KESHAVADEV ROAD, MUDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶15

4 SRI. A.B. PRADEEP KUMAR, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, RESIDING AT TC/455(1) SHRUTHI, MADHU MUKKU, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI, RAMESH BABU – SR SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, SMT.GAYATHRI POTI SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 19153/20

JUDGMENT

The Kerala State Pollution Control Board

¶23

is presently headed by the 4th respondent - Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar, as its Chairman.

¶24

2. The petitioner, Sri.K.S.Govindan

¶25

Nair, has challenged the appointment of Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar, made by the Government

¶26

through Ext.P9, on various grounds, but primarily that the process of selection, which culminated in the said appointment, has been vitiated by the illegal elimination of eligible persons, including himself; thereby

¶27

having created an unlawful favourable terrain for certain candidates of the choice of the Selection Committee. The petitioner also alleges that his elimination from the process of selection was on account of caprice and mala fides on the part of the members of

¶28

the Selection Committee and thus, prays that

¶29

WPC 19153/20

¶30

¶31

the appointment of Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar be

¶32

set aside by this Court.

¶33

3. I have heard Sri.Jaiju Babu, learned

¶34

Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, appearing for the petitioner - Sri.K.S.Govindan Nair; Sri.Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Gayathri Potti, learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent - Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar; the learned State Attorney, Sri.K.V.Sohan, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent - Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

¶35

4. As I have said above, the accusations

¶36

in this writ petition, made by

¶37

Sri.K.S.Govindan Nair, rest in part on the assertions of malice and mala fides on the

¶38

part of the members of the Selection Committee, but when this matter was considered

¶39

WPC 19153/20

¶40

¶41

today, his learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Jaiju Babu, submitted that such contentions are not being vehemently pressed and that they are intended only as a support to the main contention, namely, that the Selection process has been rendered untenable on account of the unlawful elimination of eligible candidates, including his client.

¶42

5. Sri.Jaiju Babu submitted that, as is limpid from Ext.P1 notification dated 27.02.2018, the Government of Kerala has prescribed the qualifications for the post of — Chairman of the Pollution Control Board

¶43

which is, in fact, in obedience to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶44

Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and

¶45

— others [2018 (11) SCC 734] which are: (a)

¶46

Masters Degree in Science Technology Engineering, with specialization in

¶47

environmental issues; (b) experience of

¶48

WPC 19153/20

¶49

¶50

working in an institution engaged in

¶51

environmental protection activities for a minimum period of 15 years; or experience of a minimum of 15 years in industrial pollution, water purification and air pollution.

¶52

6. The learned Senior Counsel then

¶53

showed me that, based on the qualifications so prescribed, the Government, thereafter, issued Ext.P3 notification, dated 05.05.2020, calling for applications from interested persons with requisite qualifications as mentioned above, to be made to the Principal Secretary, Environmental Department of the

¶54

Government. He says that his client accordingly made Ext.P4 application and was expecting to be called for interview, but that

¶55

he was taken aback when Ext.P9 order was

¶56

— issued by the Government appointing

¶57

Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board. The learned Senior

¶58

WPC 19153/20

¶59

¶60

Counsel thus contended that Ext.P9 order and

¶61

the process that led to it, are both vitiated; and consequently, amenable to interference of this Court, under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶62

7. In response to the afore submissions

¶63

of Sri.Jaiju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Ramesh Babu, appearing for Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar, commenced his

¶64

arguments by saying that neither the process of selection nor the issuance of Ext.P9 order in his client's favour, can be called into question by the petitioner because, going by the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the Chairman of the Pollution Control

¶65

Board is to be “nominated” by the State

¶66

Government. He submitted that this is in

¶67

contradistinction to the provisions in the

¶68

WPC 19153/20

¶69

¶70

Act with respect to the appointment of a full

¶71

time member Secretary, which stipulates that such officer shall be “appointed” by the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is a world of difference between these two words used in the Statute

¶72

and that this has been employed deliberately, so that the Government gets a free hand in appointing any person of its choice as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board.

¶73

8. After contending as afore, Sri.Ramesh Babu, submitted that the factual allegations impelled by the petitioner have absolutely no legs to stand on, because the Selection — Committee which was nominated by the Government through Ext.R1(d) order dated — 18.06.2020 comprised of the Chief Secretary as the Chairman and the Principal Secretary,

¶74

Department of Environment, Government of

¶75

¶76

WPC 19153/20

¶77

Kerala; along with Dr.K.P.Sudheer, who is the Vice Chairman of the KSCSTE and holding the temporary charge of the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board, as its members. He showed me that this Committee was, through the said order, authorized to scrutinize all the applications received; to conduct the

¶78

interview and to make recommendations of a

¶79

suitable candidate/s.

¶80

9. The learned Senior Counsel further

¶81

explained that, as is manifest from Ext.R1(c), the Committee appears to have first done a broad screening of all the applications and to have found only 17 out of the 23 applicants to be eligible as per the qualifications prescribed; proceeding to thereafter call for the Annual Confidential

¶82

Reports of those candidates who are already

¶83

serving the Government and Reports from the Heads of Organizations and Departments of the

¶84

WPC 19153/20

¶85

¶86

candidates, along with their vigilance clearance from the Director of Vigilance, as is clear from Ext.R1(e) Minutes of their meeting. He said that this eventually led to Ext.R1(f) Minutes of the Committee to be recorded; wherein, out of 17 candidates mentioned above, only 8 were found eligible, as per the prescribed criterion, to be called for the interview. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is, thereupon, that the Committee interviewed these 8 people and finally recommended the name of his client, through Ext.R1(i).

¶87

10. Sri.Ramesh Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, thus predicated that the Selection Committee has acted expressly in terms of the mandate given to them by the Government through Ext.P3 order and therefore, that the allegations made against them are completely without basis and intended only to subvert

¶88

¶89

WPC 19153/20

¶90

the legally completed process of selection.

¶91

He relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr.Ushamani M. v. State of Kerala [ILR 2008 (4) KER 729], to contend that this Court has therein approved a selection, which was done based on the interview alone, after the candidates were shortlisted by the Management, declaring that one who makes such appointments is authorized to do so, as long as it is based on reasonable and acceptable criteria. The

¶92

learned Senior Counsel then tries to impress upon me that, as is unmistakable from Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner - Sri.Govindan Nair, which is in the same format as in the case of all candidates, including his own client, every one of them was asked to declare their details of experience; administrative experience;

¶93

professional experience; membership in expert

¶94

WPC 19153/20

¶95

¶96

committee/professional bodies; involvement

¶97

and formation of environmental programmes; scholarly achievements; publications;

¶98

research projects; and honours/awards and fellowships.

¶99

The learned Senior Counsel thus

¶100

contended that when the criterion for evaluation of the merit of a candidate was so prescribed, even in the applications made by the candidates — which all of them have unequivocally accepted without any challenge — the Selection Committee was legally sanctioned

¶101

to evaluate them on the basis of these yardsticks, before they were interviewed. He concluded his submissions by saying that this is exactly what the Selection Committee has done in this case, where each one of the 17 candidates, who were earlier found qualified as per Ext.P1 notification, were shortlisted for being called for interview on the basis of

¶102

WPC 19153/20

¶103

¶104

the marks awarded to them under the heads: (i)

¶105

professional experience ; (ii) administrative

¶106

exposure ; (v) projects and (vi) awards. He resultantly prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, particularly because the edifice of the petitioner's case, on the alleged malice and mala fides on the part of the members of

¶107

the Selection Committee, has been given up, since it is obvious that it lacks substance to be established.

¶108

Attorney, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, justified the actions of the Selection Committee by asserting that, even in the case where a process of selection has only the

¶109

component of interview, it is up to the Committee authorized to conduct the same and to shortlist the candidates based on the

¶110

number of vacancies that are available. He

¶111

¶112

WPC 19153/20

¶113

submitted that since it is admitted that

¶114

there was only one vacancy for being filled up in this case and when 17 candidates were found

¶115

eligible, the Selection Committee was competent to make a short list out of them, based on the sanctioned criterion, as had been already published by the Government, which was available in the application format of the candidates.

¶116

Shri.K.V.Sohan, drew strength for his

¶117

contentions from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal and Another [(2016) 10 SCC 484]; Madhyapradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Another [(1994) 6 SCC 293]; K.Manjusree v. State of Andra Pradesh and Another [(2008) 3 SCC 512)

¶118

and that of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Sivadasan C.T v. High Court of Kerala [(2018) 1 SCC 239].

¶119

WPC 19153/20

¶120

¶121

The learned State Attorney argued

¶122

that the ratio of the afore cited precedents is unmistakable that when the vacancies are lesser in number and the applicants are much higher, a process of shortlisting is permissible in law, even where the only

¶123

component of the selection is an interview.

¶124

The learned State Attorney then

¶125

submitted that the Government had expressly authorized the Selection Committee, through Ex.R1(d), to scrutinize the applications also,

¶126

apart from conducting the interview, which can only be to mean that they could assess the qualifications of each of the candidates, based on their declarations in the applications and to evaluate them, leading to the preparation of a list of those who are

¶127

most eligible to be called for the interview.

¶128

Sri.K.V.Sohan, in conclusion, argued

¶129

that this is precisely what that the Committee

¶130

WPC 19153/20

¶131

¶132

has done and asserted that they have not

¶133

travelled beyond their jurisdiction or authority, vested in them through the Government Order; and further that the

¶134

Government has ratified all their actions

¶135

consequently, paving way to the appointment of

¶136

the 4^th respondent - Shri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar.

¶137

Finally, Shri.T.Naveen, learned

¶138

Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board, started his submissions by adopting most of the assertions of Shri.Ramesh

¶139

Babu, learned Senior Counsel; adding that this is not a case where the petitioner or any other eligible person had been eliminated from the process of selection, but that their credentials - based on the declarations in their applications - were evaluated by the Committee, leading to a shortlist of the best

¶140

to be called for interview, applying the prescribed criterion.

¶141

WPC 19153/20

¶142

¶143

Shri.T.Naveen, therefore, submitted

¶144

that the petitioner cannot have any cause for grievance, particularly when the Selection

¶145

Committee found the 4^th respondent - Shri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar, to be the most eligible among the candidates for being appointed; and that, in any event of the matter, it was up to the Government to take a final call to appoint anyone one of their - choice even disregarding such

¶146

recommendations - but that they have chosen

¶147

to accept the same, clearly establishes that,

¶148

after going through all the files, the Government thought that the best candidate - available was 4^th respondent

¶149

Shri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar. He thus prayed that

¶150

this writ petition be dismissed.

¶151

An overview of all the submissions

¶152

made before me as afore and the crux of the pleadings and counter pleadings available on

¶153

WPC 19153/20

¶154

¶155

record, ineluctably invites this Court solely

¶156

to the consideration as to whether the Selection Committee has acted correctly in exercise of their jurisdiction, as vested in them through relevant Government Order; or whether they can be found fault with having dilated from the delineated confines of their competence and to have acted capriciously, without forensic basis.

¶157

An evaluation of the afore aspect would certainly require me to first see Ext.P1, which is the notification prescribing the qualifications for the post of Chairman

¶158

of the Pollution Control Board. This notification crystally provides for the educational qualifications and experience as have already been recorded above, in addition

¶159

to which, there are certain desideratums

¶160

mentioned therein, namely, that the

¶161

candidate must have experience in conducting

¶162

WPC 19153/20

¶163

¶164

environmental programmes for Officers and to have made publications involving innovative

¶165

experience and capability in handling environmental problems.

¶166

Perspicuously, therefore, going by

¶167

the notification, there are certain essential qualifications for each candidate and certain desirable additions to the same. It is based on this that Ext.P3 notification was issued, wherein, the mandatory qualifications and the desirable additions have been shown in two different columns. This notification invited candidates to offer their applications to the Principal Secretary, Environment Department; and thereafter, through Ext.R1(d) Order, the Government constituted the afore mentioned Selection Committee, granting them the competence to scrutinize the applications; to conduct the interview and make

¶168

recommendations of a suitable candidate/

WPC 19153/20

candidates.

The Selection Committee so

¶173

constituted appears to have met several times and two of their Minutes are available on record, along with the statement filed on behalf of the State of Kerala, as Exts.R1(e) and R1(f).

¶174

The first among the said Minutes,

¶175

namely Ext.R1(e), shows that the Committee found 17 candidates, out of the 23 who had applied, to be “eligible” and this is also reflected in Ext.R1(c) compilation, wherein each candidate has been shown to be assessed

¶176

on the mandatory and desirable qualifications, thus being found either eligible or ineligible. On such basis, the Committee, as is also evident from Ext.R1(e),

¶177

decided to call for the Annual Confidential

¶178

Reports of the candidates, who are working with the Government and the report of the

¶179

WPC 19153/20

¶180

¶181

head of the organization/department of the

¶182

candidates who are otherwise, along with Vigilance Clearance from the Director of Vigilance.

¶183

Subsequently, as is recorded in

¶184

Ext.R1(f) Minutes, the Committee affirms that

¶185

all the reports as afore have been obtained and that they were all examined, along with the bio data of the 17 candidates mentioned above. The Committee has further recorded that all those persons, against whom disciplinary proceedings and adverse vigilance reports were found pending, are eliminated and then proceeds, rather abruptly, that ‘based on the professional and administrative experience, publications, exposure outside the State and Country, projects executed, awards received, leadership demonstrated, vision based on the

¶186

vision statement and public impact’ (sic), it is decided to call only eight among the 17 for

WPC 19153/20

interview.

A reflection on the opinion of the

¶191

Selection Committee, as afore, is available from the second page of Ext.R1(g), where a consolidated score card appears to have been framed by them, adopting the following marking

¶192

criteria:

¶193

	Professional	1 Mark for every additional year	>20 Years	15 Marks
	Administrative	0.5 Mark for each year	>10 Years	5 Marks
Marketing	Publications	0.5 Mark for each publication/ Book chapter	>20	10 Marks
Criteria	Exposure	2.5 Marks for each exposure visit	>4	10 Marks
	Projects	2.5 Marks for each research/consultan cy	>4	10 Marks
	Awards	2.5 Marks for each award	>4	10 Marks

¶194

After thus creating a ‘short list’, the

¶195

Committee appears to have interviewed the eight candidates in it, to finally conclude that the 4^th respondent - Shri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar, is the most suitable for being appointed, leading to their recommendation to

¶196

WPC 19153/20

¶197

¶198

the Government through Ext.R1(h).

¶199

When the afore modus - adopted by the

¶200

Selection Committee, is carefully inspected,

¶201

it becomes rather undeniable that at the initial stage it operated as a Search Committee and weeded out six candidates, to

¶202

find only 17 to be eligible. Normally, therefore, going by the purlieus of the jurisdiction vested in them by the Government, they ought to have interviewed all the said 17 candidates, provided they had favourable vigilance clearance and recommendations from the Heads of Department/Institution. In the case at hand, it is admitted - at least not being disputed - that the petitioner had obtained affirmative vigilance clearance, as also recommendations from the Head of the Department.

¶203

But, the Interview Board, rather

¶204

ineffably, decided to conduct a further

¶205

WPC 19153/20

¶206

¶207

screening - as if it was operating as a Search Committee again - and eliminated 9 among the 17 eligible candidates from the list for being called for the interview; and has justified this by saying that all the candidates were assessed on the criterion as afore recorded.

¶208

It is without requirement of further

¶209

expatiation that the criterion followed by the

¶210

Selection Committee are not ones that were

¶211

prescribed in the notifications of the Government laying the qualifications or in inviting candidates to the post of Chairman, Kerala Pollution Control Board; but have been

¶212

extrapolated by them, presumably from the applications of the candidates, taking note of the various heads included therein.

¶213

Irrefragably, the only impression

¶214

that one can inevitably gather from this

¶215

exercise is that the Selection Committee was again trying to eliminate candidates based on

¶216

WPC 19153/20

¶217

¶218

the credentials fixed on their own choice,

¶219

though they were aware that all of them are fully eligible for being interviewed, going by

¶220

the mandatory and “desirable” qualifications,

¶221

as prescribed in Ext.P1 Government Order.

¶222

Therefore, the acme question is

¶223

whether the Selection Committee could have employed eliminatory norms by themselves, to avoid calling eligible candidates to the interview; and this assumes great amount of significance in the backdrop of the admitted fact that, as per Ext.R1(d) Government Order, the only manner of selection was through interview.

¶224

Indubitably, therefore, when the

¶225

petitioner and other qualified persons were eliminated from the interview, the only

¶226

inferential conclusion can be that they were

¶227

eliminated from selection process itself. I say this because, had the process been

¶228

¶229

WPC 19153/20

¶230

postulated to have several components, then certainly, if the candidates had gone though a few of them without being invited to the interview, the submissions of Shri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board - that all of them had gone

¶231

through the selection process - would have found some credence.

¶232

However, in the case at hand, the

¶233

sole component of the process of selection is the interview to be conducted by the Selection

¶234

Committee and when eligible candidates were

¶235

not interviewed by them, based on an elimination they effected - edificed on certain criteria that they themselves fixed - this Court cannot find favour with such process and is constrained to hold that is vitiated and incapable of being granted imprimatur in law.

¶236

Before concluding my thoughts as

¶237

¶238

WPC 19153/20

¶239

afore, I must certainly evaluate the judgments

¶240

that have been cited before me by the

¶241

respondents, since they assert that the

¶242

Selection Committee was entitled to eliminate candidates even before the interview.

¶243

The judgment cited by Shri.Ramesh

¶244

Babu, learned Senior Counsel, namely

¶245

Dr.Ushamani M. (Supra) was involving a factual scenario, where the management, which is the appointing authority, had shortlisted

¶246

candidates, who alone were called for the interview. There is no doubt that the learned

¶247

Judge, in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment, held that the mere fact that all applicants were not called for the interview is not a ground on which the selection process

¶248

can be called into question and that the

¶249

appointing authority had the competence to

¶250

shortlist candidates based on reasonable and acceptable criterion. It was also noticed

¶251

¶252

WPC 19153/20

¶253

therein that the available vacancies are few, while the number of applicants were large, leading to the conclusion that it was open to the appointing authority to restrict the zone of consideration, subject to any minimum prescribed in the Rules and further that, if there was no such prescription, then the said authority only had to ensure the availability of reasonable number of candidates, as against the number of available vacancies, following acceptable criteria.

¶254

I am afraid that the observations and

¶255

the holdings in Dr. Dr.Ushamani M. (Supra)

¶256

cannot apply to the facts of this case because, unlike therein, what is assailed in this case is the process adopted by the Selection Committee, which certainly is in conflict with the delegation of power offered to them by the Government, through Ext.R1(f) order, in which it has been specified that

¶257

¶258

WPC 19153/20

¶259

their jurisdiction is limited to scrutinizing

¶260

the applications and in conducting the

¶261

interview, leading to a recommendation.

¶262

This is more so because, unlike

¶263

Dr.Ushamani M. (Supra) the Selection Committee

¶264

in this case is not the appointing authority

¶265

but only a recommending body and has been constituted by the Government obviously to

¶266

ensure that the best is made available for their final choice. Apodictically, the Selection Committee had the duty to interview all the eligible and qualified candidates and

¶267

to place their recommendations before the Government, so that the best among them could have been appointed. For these reasons I cannot find Dr.Ushamani M. (Supra) to be

¶268

applicable to the facts of this case, as I have said above.

¶269

Coming to the learned State Attorney, Shri.K.V.Sohan, he relies vehemently on Salam

¶270

WPC 19153/20

¶271

¶272

Samarjeet Singh (Supra) and Madhyapradesh Public Service Commission (Supra), again, to contend that the shortlisting by the competent Commission/Committee cannot be seem to be altering the nature of the selection process and that, it is, in fact, necessary to fix the limit of applicants to be called for interview, on some rational and objective basis, so that the credentials and merit of the candidates to be interviewed are preassessed and pre-valuated. He invited my attention to Paragraph 9 of Madhyapradesh Public Service Commission (Supra) to drive home the point that the process of shortlisting as afore has been declared to be not amounting to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria and that, as along as the Selection Committee applies its mind to evolve any rational and reasonable basis for such shortlisting, the process of selection cannot

¶273

WPC 19153/20

¶274

¶275

be found to be in error.

¶276

Sri.K.V.Sohan, also falls upon

¶277

K.Manjusree (Supra) and Sivadasan C.T.

¶278

(Supra), wherein the question considered by this Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court respectively, was whether a minimum qualifying mark could have been adopted during the process of interview, so as to scale down the number of candidates for being considered for selection and that this has been found favour by the Courts as being not violative of the fundamental selection process.

¶279

Interestingly, Shri.Jaju Babu,

¶280

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied on K.Manjusree (Supra), along with

¶281

Sreekumar v. T.D. Board [1993(1)KLT 740] and Praveen S. Lal v. State of Kerala [2006(4)KLT

¶282

712] in substantiation of his predication that the Selection Committee obtains no jurisdiction to refuse to interview all the

¶283

WPC 19153/20

¶284

¶285

qualified candidates.

¶286

There can be little doubt that the

¶287

declarations in Manjusree (supra) are to the

¶288

effect that once a process begins, its terms

¶289

cannot be altered in detriment to the

¶290

candidates; and as far as Sreekumar (supra)

¶291

and Praveen S. Lal (supra) are concerned, they

¶292

are precedents for the ratio that a selection

¶293

committee, which is constituted for the

¶294

purpose of interview, cannot lay down oppressive criteria so as to eliminate

¶295

candidates from it.

¶296

What is vitally important in this

¶297

case is that the process of identification of the best candidate for being appointed as the

¶298

Chairman of the Pollution Control Board has

¶299

been explicitly stipulated by the Government

¶300

to be through an interview conducted by the

¶301

Selection Committee constituted as per Ext.R1(d). Going by this order, the Government

¶302

¶303

WPC 19153/20

¶304

has authorized the said Committee only to

¶305

scrutinize the applications, thus to identify

¶306

the eligible candidates qua Ext.P1

¶307

notification; and then to interview them and make a recommendation.

¶308

As I have already noticed above,

¶309

initially, the Selection Committee acted correctly by arriving at Ext.R1(c) list of eligible candidates, but then egregiously erred in prescribing criterion of their own, for the purpose of eliminating 9 among the 17

¶310

eligible candidates from the interview. What is of some consternation of this Court is that

¶311

even the process of shortlisting – assuming it can be found to be legally correct – has been done without proper thought by the Selection Committee because, it is obvious that the 8^th

¶312

person in Ext.R1(f) shortlist, a certain

¶313

Dr.Sudheer Padickal, had been earlier found by the Committee themselves to be not eligible as

¶314

WPC 19153/20

¶315

¶316

per Ext.P1 notification.

¶317

That apart, as has been indited by me

¶318

more than once before, when the Government

¶319

invited candidates for the process of selection – which was specified to be only on interview - it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to subject all eligible among them to such process and could not have eliminated them on their own whim and fancy.

¶320

I am reminded of the famous words of Benjamin Cordazo - which he, of course, spoke

¶321

in relation to Judges – to hold that the Committee could not have acted like a Knight-

¶322

Errant, roaming on their own free will, pursuing their own notions of beauty and goodness. Even though the Committee may have acted bonafide to select the best among the available candidates, as long as they obtained

¶323

no jurisdiction or competence to eliminate eligible candidates before interview, such

¶324

WPC 19153/20

¶325

¶326

action cannot be found to be legally correct,

¶327

whatever be the thought behind it.

¶328

In that perspective, when I examine

¶329

the whole process panoptically, it is rendered doubtless that when 17 eligible candidates were identified to be eligible for being

¶330

interviewed initially, there was no

¶331

preceptible requirement for the Committee to have further pruned it - employing certain criterion which they themselves fixed - to bring the number down to eight and to confine

¶332

the interview among such persons. This certainly removed several admittedly qualified candidates from the field of consideration of the Government, since, as is rightly submitted by Sri.Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, it is the Government which has to finally make the nomination as per Section 4(a) of the Act.

¶333

In fact, by doing so, the Committee has deprived the Government of being able to make

¶334

WPC 19153/20

¶335

¶336

an informed choice from among all the

¶337

qualified candidates available.

¶338

There is another reason why I am

¶339

persuaded to the afore opinion, which is that,

¶340

had the number of candidates been disproportionately high, certainly, the process of shortlisting could have been considered, but with the prior sanction of the Government. However, the admitted position herein is that only 23 candidates had applied,

¶341

out of whom 17 alone were found to be

¶342

qualified by the Selection Committee through the initial screening. Obviously, therefore,

¶343

the Committee could have easily conducted interview for all the 17 candidates and there is no cogent or compelling reason available on

¶344

record as to why 9 among them had been

¶345

eliminated in the manner as has been done

¶346

through Ext.R1(f). This is especially because the Committee was open to interviewing

¶347

WPC 19153/20

¶348

¶349

candidates through videoconferencing also and it is admitted that two among the candidates mentioned in Ext.R1(f) were so interviewed.

¶350

This Court, therefore, is unable to comprehend why the Committee should have eliminated candidates like the petitioner and others from the zone of consideration, thereby effectively removing them from the process of selection, which, as I have already seen above, is only the interview and nothing else.

¶351

In real effect, what the petitioner

¶352

and others like him, have faced in these factual background is to have been not allowed to participate in the process of selection, even though the Government invited him, through Ext.P2 n otification and though he was found qualified as per Ext.P1 notification by the Selection Committee themselves.

¶353

In the conspectus of the above, I cannot grant the stamp of approval to the

¶354

¶355

WPC 19153/20

¶356

process now completed by the Government, and

¶357

am, therefore, constrained to set aside the

¶358

same; nevertheless, with liberty being

¶359

reserved to redo the process in terms of law and abiding the statutory provisions implicitly.

¶360

However, in the interregnum, I am of

¶361

the view that the 4^th respondent- Sri.A.B.Pradeep Kumar, should be allowed to continue as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board provisionally, because I have not found anything against him nor do I find any reason why he could not have been selected by the Government, had the process been completed as per law.

¶362

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside the process of selection, which has finally culminated in Ext.R1(h); with a consequential direction to the Government to ensure that all the eligible candidates, as

¶363

¶364

WPC 19153/20

¶365

mentioned in Ext.R1(c), are interviewed by the

¶366

Selection Committee, culminating in an appropriate recommendation from them; leading to the consequential nominations to be made by the Government as per the mandate of Section 4(a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶367

Until such time as the afore exercise is

¶368

completed and for which purpose I fix the time frame of four months from today, I allow the 4^th respondent to function as the Chairman of

¶369

the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and his continuance therein will be subject to the

¶370

decision to be taken by the Government consequent to the afore exercise.

¶371

Sd/-

¶372

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 19153/20

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶379

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF GO (K) NO 1/2018/ENVT DATED 27.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO 852/A1/2015-ENVT INVTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE INTERVIEW ON 16.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2018 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO A1/3160/2019/ENVT DATED 5.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 27.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE NOTICE DATED 14.7.2020 VIDE D.O. NO PCB/F2/4502/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 7.8.2020
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 7.8.2020
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.8.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2020 VIDE GO(RT) NO 71/2020/ENVT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.9.2020

¶380

WPC 19153/20

¶381

¶382

VIDE NO.A1/115/2020-ENVT. ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶383

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶384

EXHIBIT	R4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/5/1984
EXHIBIT	R4 B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/3/1999 EVIDENCING THE SUCESSFUL COMPLETION OF TRAINING AND ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
EXHIBIT	R4 C TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO M.TECH DEGREE DATED 3/10/2002
EXHIBIT	R4 D TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/5/2020
ANNEXURE	R1(A) TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.1/2018/ENVT. DATED 27/02/2018.
ANNEXURE	R1(B) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.A1/360/2019/ENVT. DATED 05/05/2020.
ANNEXURE	R1(C ) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPLICANTS.
ANNEXURE	R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.56/2020/ENVT. DATED 18/06/2020.
ANNEXURE	R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING HELD ON 25/06/2020.
ANNEXURE	R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING HELD ON 22/07/2020.
ANNEXURE	R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MARKS SCORED BY THE 17 CANDIDATES.
ANNEXURE	R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING HELD ON 20/08/2020.
ANNEXURE	R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 67/2018/ENVT. DATED 24/05/2018.

¶385

WPC 19153/20

¶386

¶387

ANNEXURE R1(J) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 4/2019/ENVT. DATED 14/01/2019.

K.S. Govindan Nair, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S. Govindan Nair, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Chandra Bai Vs R. Naveen Kumar

S.Bindu Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Ancy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr. v. Wilsanand Vs the Registrar

Dr.v.Wilsanand Vs the Registrar

N.V. Raju Vs State of Kerala