Dismissed

Paul Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021WP(C)/22480/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the selection for a part-time sweeper post, the petitioner alleged improper evaluation where a board member was absent during the successor's interview. The court held that the board's method of calculating marks using an average for the absent member was reasonable and did not warrant judicial interference. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

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

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22480 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 ADV ANOOP.V.NAIR

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

6 RAJESH P.R, PATTAMANA(H) , EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM 682 502.

¶16

7 PAUL V.K, PART TIME SWEEPER (ROADS),CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM 682 027.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 22480 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

BY ADVS. T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) KRISHNADAS P. NAIR FOR R6 C.A.CHACKO FOR R7 K.L.SREEKALA HARIDAS P.NAIR M.A.VINOD SREENATH SASIDHARAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 22480 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner participated in the selection process

¶25

to the post of part time sweeper (roads), conducted by the third respondent panchayath. He was ranked 2. Ext.P9 is the marksheet of the interview. His grievance is that, his mark has not been properly evaluated. The first rank holder who is the 7^th respondent serial number is 19 in Ext.P9. On the day of interview of the 7^th respondent, it seems that one member of the interview board, that is the welfare board standing committee chairman, was absent. At the time of interview of the petitioner, whose name appears as item number 31, all the members were present. It seems that excluding the absenting member the total marks scored by the seven respondent was 38.5. According to the panchayath, the aggregate marks awarded to all was out of 60. The marks awarded to the 7^th respondent by all the interview board members was 46.2. According to the panchayath, since one member was absent on that day, the

¶26

WP(C) NO. 22480 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

average marks obtained given to him by all other 5 board members was calculated and that was added to the total marks granted by the other remaining five members.

¶29

It seems to be a practical solution possible when

¶30

one member who on leave. This decision of the interview

¶31

board was ratified by the panchayath committee in its subsequent meeting also. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to go into the evaluation process carried on by the members of the interview Board unless that process is contrary to law, rules, procedure or does not stand to reason. I find no reason to interfere with the selection process. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

R.AV

¶35

WP(C) NO. 22480 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22480/2021

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE C.1/2678/2020 DAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF EXCHANGE, KUNNATH	LETTER NO. ED 15.01.2021 ISSUED BY FICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT URMEDU , ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. 1 ISSUED BY THE VIL	INCOME AND ASSETS, 1/21 DATED 18.01.2021 LAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE A1/1123/21 DATED THE 4TH RESPONDEN	APPOINTMENT LETTER NO. 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 26.4.2021.	ORDER NO. AI-3278/2021
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 29.9.2021 IN WPC	JUDGMENT DATED 11274/2021.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 05.10.2021 RESPONDENT.	LETTER NO. A4/ 6012/21 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 13.10.2021 RESPONDENT.	ORDER NO. AI-6012/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE TO THE SELECTION TIME SWEEPER.	MARK SHEET PERTAINING TO THE POST OF PART
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 16.09.2021 SUBMIT BEFORE THE 4TH RE	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT.

¶40

WP(C) NO. 22480 OF 2021

¶41

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afsal Vs N.Thankraj

G .Suresh Vs Kerala State Sports Council

Gopala Krishna Rao, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Ayisha Moosa Vs Sreeram Sambasiva Rao

Akhil Vishnu T S Vs State of Kerala

Saseeswaran .a. Vs State of Kerala