Allowed

P.v.Vinod v. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies

Kerala HC14 Sept 2021WA/596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition by a candidate excluded from an evictee family preferential appointment rank list. The Court held that the appellant's documents were sufficient to establish evictee status and directed immediate appointment to the vacant post.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal and Writ petition allowed; Single Judge's judgment set aside; direction to appoint the petitioner to the existing vacant post.

P.v.Vinod Vs Kerala University of Fisheries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 596 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26588/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C) NO.26588 OF 2018:

¶10

P.V.VINOD, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.VISWAMBARAN, PATHUTHAIKKAL HOUSE, MADAVANA, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANAGAD-682506.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.JOLLY JOHN SMT.LIZA MEGHAN CYRIAC SMT.ANUPAMA SIBI SMT.IRENE BABU

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN IN WP(C) NO.26588 OF 2018:

¶13

KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN STUDIES KUFOS, PANANGAD P.O, KOCHI-682006, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.T. K VIPINDAS, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

:2:

W.A.No.596 of 2021

JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶20

The petitioner in W.P(C).No.26588 of 2018 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.03.2021 of the learned Single Judge.

¶21

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows: The petitioner had responded to a Notification issued by the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) for filling up vacancies of temporary employees in the University. The Notification envisaged a preference to members of those families that were evicted from their lands, in connection with the establishment of the University. The petitioner, who is the son of a person whose land was acquired and was stated to be residing with his father at the time of eviction, responded to the Notification and participated in the selection process that followed. In the rank list that was prepared by the University, the petitioner was ranked at Sl.No.19 but he was not included in the separate rank list prepared for male candidates falling under the category of members of evictee families. Finding that people lower in rank in the general rank list had found a place in the rank list of evictee

¶22

:3:

¶23

W.A.No.596 of 2021

¶24

family members prepared by the University, the petitioner approached this Court through the Writ petition alleging irregularities in the preparation of the rank list.

¶25

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University in the Writ Petition, the stand taken by the University is essentially that while the candidates who were ranked in the general rank list were called for an interview on 12.03.2018, on which date they were to produce documents such as Nativity Certificate, Community Certificate as also documents indicating that they were persons who were affected by the eviction and were members of the evictee families, the petitioner had not produced any certificate that unambiguously indicated that he was a member of an evictee family entitled to the benefit of preferential appointment. While the petitioner rebutted the said averments by pointing out that his status as a member of the evictee family for the purposes of preferential appointment could be gathered from the other documents that were admittedly produced by him before the interview committee, the said argument did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who considered the matter. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in this Writ Appeal observed that inasmuch as the petitioner had not produced a certificate issued by the revenue authority showing that his father was an evictee, he could not be heard

¶26

:4:

¶27

W.A.No.596 of 2021

¶28

to complain against his exclusion from the final rank list prepared in respect of evictee family members. The Writ petition was accordingly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶29

We have heard Sri.Jolly John, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Vipin Das, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶30

Before us, it is the submission of Sri.Jolly John, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the documents produced by him at the time of interview also included a certificate issued by the Revenue Officer, which clearly indicated that the writ petitioner and his family are permanent residents of the Kumbalam village and that the area where he and his family resides is within 5 kilometers of the Fisheries College. He would also point out that a certificate of this nature, along with the documents akin to those admittedly produced by him at the time of interview, were deemed sufficient for recognising the status of the 3^rd rank holder, one Niyad, who although ranked below the petitioner in the general rank list, was subsequently offered preferential appointment by the University recognising his status as a member of an evictee family. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that a differential treatment ought not to be meted out to the writ petitioner who, it is apparent from the documents produced, was a member of the

¶31

:5:

¶32

W.A.No.596 of 2021

¶33

evictee family and was also prejudicially affected by the eviction.

¶34

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge was on the finding that the petitioner had not produced a certificate from the revenue authority that showed him to be the member of an evictee family. We find, however, from a perusal of the documents produced by the other candidates who were offered preferential appointment, by accepting their status as members of evictee families, that the documents in the possession of the petitioner would suffice to establish his claim as a member of the evictee family for the purposes of preferential appointment. Looking at the overall circumstances of the case, therefore, we are of the view that merely because the petitioner did not produce a particular certificate of the Village Officer (a submission by the respondent that is not accepted by the petitioner) the benefit of preferential appointment ought not to be denied to the writ petitioner, more so when the respondent does not now dispute the fact that he was a member of an evictee family. Under such circumstances, taking an overall view on the basis of documents produced before us, and in the interests of justice, we allow the Writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowing the Writ Petition.

¶35

:6:

¶36

W.A.No.596 of 2021

¶37

It might be relevant to point out at this juncture that at the time of admitting this Writ Appeal, we had passed an interim order directing that appointments, if any made by the respondent, would be subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent University points out that there is currently a vacant post to which the appellant can be accommodated without disturbing any other appointments made, including that of Niyad, who was admittedly lower ranked than the writ petitioner in the rank list. Taking note of the said development, while allowing the Writ Appeal, as also the Writ Petition, we direct the respondent University to appoint the writ petitioner to the existing vacant post of temporary casual labourer by treating him as having established his status as a member of an evictee family.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

mns

:7:

W.A.No.596 of 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS ANNEXURE

¶46

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS) 359/67/RD DATED 10.08.1967

¶47

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS) 1039/79/RD DATED 06.08.1979

¶48

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO.81847/D2/87/RD DATED 06.03.1988

¶49

ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS) 391/2005/RD DATED 16.12.2005

¶50

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

:8:

W.A.No.596 of 2021

P.v.Vinod v. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Vinod v. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies

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

W. Vimala Vs State of Kerala

W.Vimala Vs S.Sheeba

W.Vimala Vs State of Kerala

Nisha R. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Ansar Arabic College Vs P.Shamsudheen

Justice D.Hariparanthaman (Retd) Vs State of Kerala