Disposed

Paul Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Sept 2021WP(C)/11274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order removing the petitioner from a Part Time Sweeper post due to alleged quota violation, directing authorities to issue notice, provide a hearing to the petitioner and the first-ranked respondent, and pass a composite order within ten days allowing the seventh respondent to take charge.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 set aside; notice to petitioner and 6th respondent given; requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing imposed; 7th respondent permitted to take charge pending composite order.

Paul Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PAUL JOSEPH AGED 49 YEARS S/O.M.P.OUSEPH, PART TIME SWEEPER (ROAD), CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 027 RESIDING AT MANJOORAN HOUSE, VENGOOR P.O., THUNGALI, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. ANOOP.V.NAIR VARUN C.VIJAY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATHS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶12

3 THE CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 027.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY, CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 027.

¶14

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

5 THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KAKKANAD - 682 030.

¶17

6 RAJESH P.R. PATTAMANA (H), EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 502. *ADDL.R7 PAUL V.K PART TIME SWEEPER (ROADS), CHERANELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM682 027.

¶18

*ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14-092021 IN IA 1/2021.

¶19

BY ADVS. T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) KRISHNADAS P. NAIR C.A.CHACKO K.L.SREEKALA HARIDAS P.NAIR M.A.VINOD

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Towards two vacancies for Part Time Sweeper in Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath, applications were invited. One vacancy, as revealed by Ext.P3, was reserved for Viswakarma. The petitioner and sixth respondent were appointed. By Ext.P5 proceeding of the Secretary in charge of the Panchayat, it was informed that the petitioner, who was the second rank holder, was appointed by violating the reservation quota and hence, pursuant to the direction of District Employment Officer, petitioner was removed from service, to appoint a Viswakarma candidate. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has approached this Court. The 6^th respondent was the first ranked candidate. The additional 7^th respondent, armed with Ext.R6(b), the order of his selection has approached this Court contending that he has been appointed to the post reserved for Viswakarma. His grievance is that he has been kept out of employment not

¶25

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

withstanding the order of selection issued to him on

¶28

26.04.2021, by virtue of interim order of this court. He got himself impleaded.

¶29

After hearing the rival contentions set up by the petitioner, the 6^th respondent and the additional 7^th respondent, I feel that petitioner has a case that he was not heard before Ext.P5 order was issued. Claim of the additional 6^th respondent is that, he has been duly appointed, being the candidate who secured highest marks. Additional 7th respondent has a grievance that he has been appointed to the reserved post, but he could not take charge in the light of the interim order obtained by the petitioner. However, there seems to be a dispute set up by the petitioner regarding allotment of marks, to the sixth respondent at the time of selection process.

¶30

Having considered the above rival contentions, Ext.P5 is set aside. I am inclined to direct the Secretary, who is the 4^th respondent, to give notice to the petitioner

¶31

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 6th respondent pass appropriate composite order in accordance with law within ten days from today. Additional 7^th respondent shall be permitted to take charge by the above composite order. Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

R.AV

¶37

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11274/2021

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 15/01/2021 EMPLOYMENT OFFICE EXCHANGE, KUNNATH	LETTER NO.C1/2678/2020 ISSUED BY THE R, TOWN EMPLOYMENT URMEDU, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.11 ISSUED BY THE VIL	INCOME AND ASSETS /21 DATED 18/01/2021 LAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NO.A1/1123/21 DAT THE 4TH RESPONDEN	APPOINTMENT LETTER ED 18/03/2021 ISSUED BY T.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 27/02/2021 RESPONDENT.	ORDER NO.A1-1123/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26/04/2021 RESPONDENT.	ORDER NO.A1-3278/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH

¶42

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit R6(A)	THE TRUE 12/02/202	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 0 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(B)	THE TRUE 26/04/202	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(C)	THE TRUE 24/05/202	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(D)	THE TRUE FILED BY RESPONDEN	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH T.

Paul Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul Joseph 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

P .S. Unnikrishnan Vs the Chakkittapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.F 1675

Retnamma, Vs a.Alexander I.A.S

Dr.Rency Simon Vs the Secretary

Nadeera M, Vs the Karunagappally Municipality

Gopalan Thayathidavan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Gokul Sreekumar Vs Punjab National Bank