Dismissed

Rebi. K.a., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2021WP(C)/3493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual employees challenged their termination and replacement through fresh selection in a government-owned corporation. The court rejected allegations of bias and procedural illegality and held that the unsuccessful participants could not challenge the selection process. Two writ petitions were dismissed; the connected petition challenging appointments was closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rebi. K.a., 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

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3493 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 REBI. K.A S/O. ALI, PALLIYAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, MARITHAZHAM P.O., KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 315. 2 SHAHINA K.A. W/O. ABDULLA, KINATTINKARA HOUSE, KUNJITHAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 683 522. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAMED YOUSEFF T.M (SR.), SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SRI.C.M.EBRAHIM SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.SHOUKATH HUSAIN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 KERALA STATE MINORITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KURDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATHKULAM, WEST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 005. 3 DEPUTY MANAGER-IN-CHARGE KERALA STATE MINORITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PWD OFFICE COMPLEX, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI - 682 033.

¶10

4 PROF.A.P.ABDUL VAHAB CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., KURDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATH KULAM,WEST HILL.P.O.,KOZHIKODE-673005.

¶11

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶12

¶13

5 SRI.C.K.USMAN HAJI, DIRECTOR , KERALA STATE MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,. KURDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATHKULAM, WEST HILL.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673005.

¶14

6 PROF.MONAMMA KOKKAD ,DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, KURDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATH KULAM, WEST HILL P.O.., KOZHIKODE-673005.

¶15

7 SRI.V.K. AKBAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. KURDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATHKULAM, WEST HILL.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673005.

¶16

8 DILEEPKUMAR.V.R., ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (MINORITY WELFARE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/3/2019 IN IA 12162/18.

¶17

9 ADDL.R9.MALLIKA BEEGUM KERALA STATE MINORITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PWD OFFICE COMPLEX, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI - 33. 10 RAJILA.P PALOLI HOUSE CHEMMENKADAVU,PAZHAKKAL,KODUR-676504.(ADDL.R10 IMLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED27/06/2019 IN IA.4/2019).

¶18

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER V.VENUGOPAL SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KALEESWARAM RAJ S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY SMT.N.SANTHA KUM.A.ARUNA SRI.V.VARGHESE KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SHRI.VISHNU V.K.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.MOHAMED YOUSEFF T.M (SR.), GP V.VENUGOPAL

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7858/2019, 19531/2017, THE COURT ON 12/11/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶30

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943

¶31

WP(C) NO. 7858 OF 2019

¶32

PETITIONER:

¶33

FAVAS P.P. AGED 27 YEARS S/O.LKUNHI MOHAMMED,BUSAINA MANZIL, VAZHAYOOR EAST.P.O,RAMANATTUKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶34

BY ADV P.V.BABY

¶35

RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 KERALA STATE MINORITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORTATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KURDFC BUILIDNG,CHAKKORATHUKULAM, WEST HILL.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673005.

¶37

2 DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINORITY WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶38

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION(MINORITYWELFARE DAPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶39

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶40

5 RAJLA.P, PALOLI HOUSE,CHEMMAN KADAVU, PAZHAKKAL,KODUR-676504.

¶41

6 JISHINA.K, JS NIVAS,KOMATH THAZHA,CHAMPAD.P.O,

¶42

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶43

¶44

THALASSERY-670694.

¶45

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ GOVERNMENT PLEADER V.VENUGOPAL SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3493/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12/11/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶48

¶49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶50

PRESENT

¶51

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶52

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943

¶53

WP(C) NO. 19531 OF 2017

¶54

PETITIONER:

¶55

FAVAS P.P AGED 26 YEARS AGED 26, S/O. KUNHI MOHAMMED,BUSAINA MANZIL, VAZHAYOOR EAST P.O.,RAMANATTUKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 673 633.

¶56

BY ADVS. ADV.MUHAMMED YOUSEFF T.M.(SR) SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB

¶57

RESPONDENTS:

¶58

1 KERALA STATE MINORITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COPORATION ;TD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KURDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATHUKULAM,WEST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 005.

¶59

2 DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MINORITY WELFARE,VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001.

¶60

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINSITRATION (MINORITY WELFARE) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶61

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶63

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶64

¶65

13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3493/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12/11/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶67

¶68

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶69

[WP(C) Nos.3493/2018, 7858/2019, 19531/2017]

¶70

The petitioners in these writ petitions were employed by the second respondent-Kerala State Minority Development Finance Corporation, which is a Government owned company. Challenging their termination and aggrieved by the accommodation of new provisional employees, petitioners have approached this Court.

¶71

In W.P.(C) No.3493/2018, the first petitioner was engaged as an office attendant on 20/4/2015 and the second petitioner as junior assistant on 21/1/2015. They were appointed against posts sanctioned under Ext.P1. The appointment was on a contract basis. Exts.P2 and P3 were the appointment orders. The contract was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the second respondent requested the Government by Ext.P6 communication dated 12/1/2016, to regularize the appointment of the petitioners. Subsequently, Ext.P7 notification was issued by the second respondent inviting fresh applications for appointment on contract basis to several posts, including that of the office attendant and junior assistant. Apprehending termination, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.34459/2016. By Ext.P9 judgment, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P6 notification to the extent of applications inviting for office assistants and junior assistants. It was directed that the petitioners shall continue till the regular appointments were made.

¶72

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶73

¶74

The petitioners challenged it in W.A. No.1878/2017. The third respondent, the Deputy Manager -in -charge of the second respondent Corporation, challenged the above judgment in W.A.No.1837/2017 to the extent of certain directions issued by the learned Single Judge. By Ext.P10 common judgment, the Division Bench directed that the petitioners shall also be permitted to participate. Accordingly, they were called for interview evidenced by Exts.P11 & P12. Thereafter, the rank list of office attendant and junior assistant were published as Exts.P13 and P14, excluding the names of the petitioners. Contending that the respondents Nos 9 and 10, the employees who were selected and posted pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent, were appointed by a wrong process of selection, that there were several irregularities in the appointment, that the 8^th respondent colluded with the other respondents to exclude the petitioners and further alleging mala fides, the petitioners have approached this court. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P15 dated 29/1/2018, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with.

¶75

In W.P.(C)No.19531/2017, the sole petitioner therein was appointed as office attendant on 11.10.2015 and was continuously engaged till 31/1/2017 . The contract of appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time without any change in service conditions. Subsequently, notification was published inviting application to the various posts, including that of the office attendants. On 31/1/2017, the Managing Director of the first respondent informed the petitioner that he need not report for the work from 1-2-2017. The petitioner submitted a representation on 10/2/2017 to the second respondent. Alleging that no action was taken thereon, the petitioner has approached this court. It was stated that on

¶76

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶77

¶78

2/5/2017, it was informed that 12 candidates including the petitioner were terminated and new persons stood appointed pursuant to the notification. Challenging the denial of employment,the petitioner has approached this court seeking reliefs.

¶79

The Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19531/2017 filed another W.P.(C) No.7858/2019, challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 & 6. According to him, the Corporation had decided to regularize the employees appointed on contract basis and accordingly recommended to the Government. The resolution is Ext.P2. However, the Government by decision dated 25/2/2016, decided to continue the employment of all persons like the petitioners for a period of three years. This is evidenced by Ext. P3. On 14/3/2017, another cabinet meeting was held. Ext.P4 is the results of a modified selection process. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 were appointed after denying employment to the petitioners and certain others. Hence, Ext.P5 representation was submitted. Lamenting that it was not considered by the first respondent, the petitioner has approached this court to quash the selection of the respondents 5 and 6.

¶80

In W.P.(C) No.3493/2018, the first respondent Government filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it was contended that by various G.Os, 18 posts were created in the head office and regional offices of the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation and the mode of appointment and the qualification of the posts were also prescribed. Though the petitioners sought for various reliefs, relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others (AIR 2006 SC 1806), in the present case, it was a contractual appointment. It was stated

¶81

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶82

¶83

that, by cabinet decision No.8547 dated 25/2/2016, though it was decided to extent the contract period of employees working in Kerala State Minorities Development Financial Corporation for three years, no Government order was issued. The Cabinet Sub Committee renewed the cabinet decision and took a policy decision to make appointment on contract basis as per Ext.R1(a). It was stated that, since they were contract appointments, there was no need to follow the Rules of reservation prescribed under Rules 14 to 17 of Part (2) KS & SSR.

¶84

In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it was contended that pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment, the Corporation requested approval for proceeding with the selection process. Thereafter, interview panel was constituted for conducting the interview. Interviews were conducted on two different dates for the clerk cum computer operators/junior assistants and mark lists were prepared. It was stated that the petitioners got very low marks than the marks obtained by the first rank holder. A copy of the rank list was also produced along with the mark sheet. The Government approved the rank list and pursuant to it, appointments were made. The various allegations of mala fides were denied by the respondent. Provisions of KS & SSR were not applicable to the second respondent, since the second respondent, was a newly established Corporation.

¶85

To the amended W.P.(C)No.3493/2018, additional counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent denying the various allegations. It was contended that the allegation that V.R.Dileepkumar, who was the Additional Secretary in the Department of Minority Development has colluded with the other respondents, particularly with the Chairman and Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent

¶86

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶87

¶88

Corporation in constituting the committee for conducting the interview was incorrect and denied. It was also contended that the entire process was conducted transparently, strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Committee was neither vindictive nor biased. The specific allegation that the members of the Board of Directors including the Chairman and the Managing Director were maintaining ill will or resentment towards the petitioners and they were eagerly waiting for an opportunity to send the petitioners out was incorrect and hence denied. Their selection was conducted in accordance with procedure and no influence was exerted on the Board.

¶89

Heard the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3493/2018 and W.P.(C) No.19531/2017. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7858/2019 was also heard. The learned counsel for the respondent -State, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and also the contesting respondents were also heard. Pursued the records.

¶90

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the Corporation followed unfair labour practice by engaging contract labourers when employees could be engaged directly. The ostensible purpose of engaging the contract labour, instead of permanent employees was to gain monitory advantage by reducing the expenditure. It was further contended that the attempt of the Corporation was only to terminate the services of the petitioners. To support this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Gujarath Electricity Board Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. (1995 KHC 895). As a corollary to the above contention, it was further contended

¶91

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶92

¶93

that the petitioners who were contract employees were sought to be terminated to be replaced by another set of contract employees which was an unfair legal practice. To support this, learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Sulochana A.C. v. KPSC (2014 KHC 261) , Dr.Meeradevi. v.Himachal Pradesh University(CWP No.3054/2019 ) and H arguru Pratap Singh v.State of Punjab and Others (2007 (13) SCC 292).

¶94

I am afraid that the above contentions have no basis at all. Evidently, by Ext.P1 notification, the Government had only sanctioned the posts. However, the mode of appointment prescribed by the Government was on contract/deputation basis. This being prescribed by the Government, the Corporation cannot be accused of engaging contract employees. The further contention was that, termination of service of one set of contract employees to be replaced by another set of contract employees, though has some basis on the strength of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh(AIR 1992 SC 2130), wherein it was held that it may not be proper to terminate the service of contract employee to be substituted by another set of contract employees. This contention is not available to the petitioners now, in the light of the challenge made by the petitioner against the termination resulting in Ext.P9 judgment in W.P. (C) No.34459/2016, which was confirmed with modification Ext.P10 judgment in in W.A.No.1878/2017 and W.A.1837/2017.

¶95

The learned senior counsel further attacked the process of selection on the specific ground that there was no recruitment rule provided and the interview committee did not follow any specific rule of procedure. There was no clarity as to

¶96

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶97

¶98

the procedure that was actually adopted by the selection committee for awarding marks to the candidate. It was also contended that there were several materials to show that the petitioners were singled out and were treated with motives. The learned senior counsel to advance his contention, that the Corporation was biased and was actuated by motives against the petitioners for having moved the court earlier, pointed out few factors, which according to the learned senior counsel were available on record.

¶99

The learned senior counsel vehemently contended that the comments made by the interview board indicated that they were sceptical about the conduct of the petitioners in approaching the court by filing the writ petition. It was also contended that Mr.V.R.Dileepkumar, was specifically holding animus towards the petitioner. It was further contended that no specific memo of interview was given to the petitioners in advance and information was passed on to them casually, just prior to the date of interview. It was alleged that the Additional Secretary of the Minority Department, himself issued a Government Order and got himself appointed as a member of the committee, for exerting influence on the other members. It was also contended that even before the judgment in the writ appeal was received by the Board, on the basis of the legal opinion given by the counsel evidenced by Ext.P18(a), the committee rushed to conduct the interview. It was contended that this evidenced mala fides and undue interest shown by the Board to reject the petitioners and to select their person.

¶100

Regarding the last contention, learned senior counsel vehemently relied on Ext.P18(a) in which it was stated that the counsel had informed that the writ

¶101

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶102

¶103

appeal was dismissed and permission was granted to proceed with the selection and hence there was no embargo in proceeding with the appointment on contract basis. It was also informed by the counsel that since time will be taken for obtaining the certified copy, there was no need for waiting till the certified copy of the judgment was received. Substantially, the information passed on by the counsel as evident from Ext.P18(a) is not contradictory to the writ appeal judgment. Even if they proceeded with the interview on the basis of the legal advice alone, that by itself is not sufficient to indicate any malice, except that the Board wanted to proceed with the interview as expeditiously as possible.

¶104

Regarding the appointment of the 8^th respondent, Dileep Kumar V.R., as a member of the interview Board, the learned counsel vehemently relied on Ext.P18(e), which was the Government Order issued by the Additional 8^th respondent, permitting the interview to be conducted by the committee. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.P18 (f) dated 9/1/2018, by which the Additional Secretary of the Minorities Department was appointed as a member of the interview board. It was contended that both the GOs were issued by the Additional 8th respondent himself and it clearly showed malice . The Point which learned counsel was attempting to advance was that by virtue of Ext.P18 (d), 8^th respondent granted permission to proceed with the interview and by Ext.P18(f) he ordered his own inclusion in the Board as a member. This was projected by the learned senior counsel as a serious ground to support his contention that the said Dileep Kumar was prejudicial towards the petitioners.

¶105

I cannot accept this contention even for a moment for a more reasons

¶106

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶107

¶108

than one. Though repeatedly it is stated that the above person was enimical towards the petitioners, there is absolutely no reason as to why he should be on enimical terms with the above writ petitioners. It is also not clear whether the parties are even known to the additional 8^th respondent. There was no probable cause also to arrive at a conclusion that the Additional 8^th respondent was enimical and whether he had any pre acquaintance with the above persons nor any valid reason to be on enimical terms is even suggested. It is also pertinent to note that Ext.P18(d) was issued by him in his capacity as the Additional Secretary of the concerned department. It was issued pursuant to the communication issued by the Corporation dated 16/11/2017. Further, Ext.P18(f) was issued by the Government on a request made by the Corporation on 18/12/2017, requesting to nominate a representative of the Government. The Government, after considering this request, had appointed the Additional Secretary of the Minorities Department as its member. It so happened that the Additional 8^th respondent, who was the Additional Secretary, had signed the above order. I find nothing illegal or irregular in that. . It was the Government which nominated him and not the Additional 8^th respondent in its personal capacity. In the light of the above, I find no reason to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that there is no basis in the contention set up that, interview memo was not issued to the petitioners. In fact, the communications issued to the petitioners are produced along with the writ petition. It is immaterial whether it was belatedly served or not. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the intimation, petitioners attended the interview without any demur. In ultimate analysis, except few trivial,

¶109

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶110

¶111

immaterial and untenable contentions claiming that the tone and attitude of the interview board showed vindictiveness as against the petitioners, nothing substantial could be established. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in Kumarmandal Vikas Nigam v. Girija Shankarpath and others (2001 KFC 1185), wherein it was held that mere general statement will not be sufficient for the purpose of establishing malice.

¶112

On an appreciation of the entire materials, I feel that the allegation of mala fides though vehemently projected by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has no basis at all. Evidently, this court cannot sit in appeal over the matters of selection and relative merits of the candidates as repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in various decisions including Madan Lal v. State of J & K and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 486) and D alpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S.Mahajan(1990) 1 SCC 305).

¶113

Yet another contention projected by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners was that no Rules were framed regarding the standards and norms and method for selection. To contend that selection without following any Rules was improper, learned senior counsel relied on the decisions reported in Renu & Others v. District & Sessions Judge(2014 SCC 68) , P .Mohan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others(2006 KHC 947) and Indirabai v. KSW & WW Authority ( 1987 KHC 116).

¶114

In answer to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that the petitioners are estopped from contending that the temporarily appointed persons cannot be replaced with other

¶115

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶116

¶117

temporarily appointed persons and pointed out that, Ext.P10 common judgment has become final and conclusive and was not subjected to an appeal. The learned counsel contended that in the light of the final decision rendered in Ext.P10, wherein the question of selection was under challenge and the learned single judge and the learned Division Bench had permitted the petitioners to proceed with the selection process, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process.

¶118

It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that a failed candidate cannot turn round and challenge the selection process. The petitioner is accordingly, estopped from challenging the method of selection. It was submitted by the learned counsel that, it is a settled position of law that a person who chose to participate in the selection process upon being unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge the selection process. To buttress this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in Dr.G.Sharna v. University of Lucknow (1976 (3) SCC 585) . In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576), it was held that if the petitioner had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner, after having participated in the selection process and on finding that his name does not figure in the merit list is not entitled to question the selection. To substantiate it, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in University of Cochin v. N.S.Kanjoonjamma (1997) 4 SCC 426), wherein it was held that the persons who had applied for and sought selection but remained unsuccessful is estopped from challenging the correctness of the procedure.

¶119

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶120

¶121

It was further contended that the reservation Rule and communal rotation prescribed in the KSS & SS Rules have not been followed . In the counter affidavit filed by the Government as well as the second respondent, it was contended that, being a contract employment, KS & SSR Rules have no application. It was also contended that, being a newly constituted Corporation, they are not under an obligation to follow the KS & SS Rules. The learned counsel pointed out that after having known the mode of recruitment and after having known the mode of appointment, petitioners cannot now turn round and are estopped from challenging the method of recruitment on the above ground. To further substantiate it, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi & Ors (2013) 11 SCC 309) and the decision reported in D.Sarojakumari v. R.Helen Thilakom (2017) 9 SCC 478).

¶122

On an evaluation of the entire facts, it is evident that by Ext.P10 judgment, the Division Bench had permitted the Corporation to proceed with the selection notification, except for interference regarding certain directions. Substantially, the direction of the learned Single Judge was also accepted by the Division Bench. This having been final and considering that the petitioners are parties to attend the selection process, they are not entitled to now turn round and contend that the selection process was valid. In the light of the settled legal proposition, I find no basis in the contentions set up by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Further, there is absolutely nothing on record to hold that any Rules or procedure were applicable to the Board, for selection process. There is also no merit in W.P.(C) No.7858/2019.

¶123

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶124

¶125

On an evaluation of the entire materials, I find no merit in the writ petitions, which are only to be dismissed. W.P.(C) No.3493/2018 and W.P.(C) No.19531/2017 are dismissed. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.7858/2019 is closed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶131

¶132

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7858/2019

¶133

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶134

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/7/2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 22/12/2015 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CABINET DECISION NO.8547 DATED 25/2/2016
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CABINET DECISION DATED 14/3/2017 ISSUED AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/1/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7/1/2019
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 11/1/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/3/2019 ISSUED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMISSION DATED 16/4/2019
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2019

¶135

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶136

EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENT DATED 6/11/2015

¶137

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PLUS TWO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 25.8.2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.2017. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ON 25.5.2017. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF TH ANSWER MADE IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BY THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR MINORITY WELFARE. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15.7.2014.

¶142

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶143

EXHIBIT R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(MS) NO.194/13/GAD DATED 29/6/2013 EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O. (MS)NO.5535/2014/GAD DATED 15/7/2014 EXT.R3(C): COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(MS)NO.25/2016/GAD DATED 25/2/2016

¶144

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶145

¶146

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3493/2018

¶147

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶148

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO. 5535/2014/GAD DATED 15.07.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 365/E&A/2014/KSMDFC DATED 21.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 365/E&A/2014/KSMDFDC DATED 21.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 05/E&A/2016/KSMDFC DATED 12.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPODNENT.
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INVITING FRESH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT.
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.01.2017 IN W.P.C.NO.34459/2016.
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2017 IN W.P.C.NO. 34459/2016.
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2017 IN W.A.NO. 1878/2017 & W.A.NO. 1837/2017.
EXHIBIT P11	COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED 12.01.2018 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	COPY OF THE G MAIL COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE INTERVIEW ON 23.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P13	COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED IN THE

¶149

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶150

¶151

WEBSITE IN RESPECT OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT.

¶152

EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE IN RESPECT OF OFFICE ATTENDENT. EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 32/18/KSMDFC DATED 29.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION LETTERS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AS EXT.P16 TO P16(C) EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.08.2017 IN W.P.C.NO.25463/2017. EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 48/2015/FIN DATED 13.05.2015 ISSUED FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. EXT.P18(a). COPY OF THE LETTER NO.194/2017/KSMDFC DATED 16/11/2017 EXT.P18(b): COPY OF MINUTS OF THE 42ND MEETING OF THE BOARD. EXT.P18(c): COPY OF THE LETER NO. 954/KSMDFC/16 DATED 18/12/2017 EXT.P18(d):COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE MW2/311/2017-GAD DATED 22/12/2017

¶153

EXT.P18(e): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/1/2018 EXT.P18(f): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.173/2018 DATED 9/1/2018. EXT.P18(F)(a): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION EXT.P18(g): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.4100/2017. EXT.P18(h). COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25/8/2016 EXT.P18(i): COPY FO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER.

¶154

EXT.P18(j) COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP

¶155

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶156

¶157

NO.34459/2016

¶158

EXT.P18(k): COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 27/2/2017

¶159

EXT.P18 (l): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/8/2017 IN WP(C) 25463/2017

¶160

EXT.P18(m): COPY OF THE MARKSHEET DATED 22/1/2018 23/1/2018

¶161

EXT.P18(n): COPY FO THE RANK LIST DATED 25/1/2018.

¶162

EXHIBIT P19 PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(P) MO.27/2016/FIN DATED 26-2-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶163

EXHIBIT P20 PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.27/2016/FIN DATED 26-2-2016.

¶164

EXHIBIT P21 PHOTO COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11555/BPE/85/PLG. DATED 13-6-1985 NO.22437/BPE/85/PLG. DATED 4-1-1986.

¶165

EXHIBITP 22 PHOTO COPY OF LIST OF THE PROPOSED APPOINTEES PREPARED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WITH PREDATE AS 29.1.2018 WHICH THE PETITIONER OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶166

EXHIBIT P23 PHOTO COPY OF LIST OF THE PERSONS ALLEGED TO HAVE APPOINTED HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,ON 13.4.2018

¶167

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶168

EXT.R1 (A): COPY OF THE G.O.DATED 28/4/2017

¶169

EXT.R2(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/11/2017

¶170

EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 16/12/2017

¶171

EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/12/2017

¶172

EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2017

¶173

W.P.(C)No.3493/2018 & others

¶174

¶175

EXT.R2(E): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/1/2018

¶176

EXT.R2(F): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/2018

¶177

EXT.R2(G): COPY OF THE MARK SHEET FOR CLERK CUM COMPUTER OPERATOR/JUNIOR ASSISTANTS.

¶178

EXT.R2(H): COPY OF THE MARK SHEET

¶179

EXT.R2(I) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/1/2018 EXT.R2(J): COPY OF MEETING HELD ON 24/1/2018

Rebi. K.a., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rebi. K.a., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha. E.N. Vs State of Kerala

R.G. Harikrishna Warrier Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Shymon P Vs Secretary

Favas P.P. Vs Kerala State Minority Development Finance Corportation Ltd.

C.P.George Vs State of Kerala

Muneera P., Vs State of Kerala