Petitioner challenged inclusion of respondents in an unskilled worker recruitment rank list citing non-residence violations. Court found distance criteria met and experience irrelevant per guidelines. Petition dismissed.
Petitioner's Writ Petition dismissed; appointment of Board continued as per rank list validated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.6843 OF 2018(E)
PETITIONER:
ANISH J., S/O.JOY, AGED 35 YEARS, KALAPARAMBIL VEEDU,RANK NO.24, ROLL NO.74, KOLAHALAMEDU P O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685501.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.DEEPAK RAJ SRI.P.T.MANOJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIMITED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PATTAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695001.
2 JOBIN V J, S/O.KUNJUMON, HOUSE NO.274/15 ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VYRAMALAYIL , DEDDU, BHONAMAI PUDUVAYIL,FAIRFIELD P O, IDUKKI , PIN 685501.
3 SUNITHA S, W/O.PREMKUMAR, HOUSE NO:361/15 ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAVAKKULAM PUTHUVEL HOUSE, FAIRFIELD P O, IDUKKI,PIN-685501.
(ADDL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2020)
WPC 6843/18
2
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R4 BY ADV. T.R.HARIKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 6843/18
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be included as
Rank No.25 in Ext.P4 rank list, prepared by
the 1 st respondent-Kerala Livestock Development
Board Ltd, pursuant to a selection conducted by them for identifying candidates qualified
to be appointed as unskilled workers.
2. The petitioner asserts that the
selection ought to have been conducted on the basis of Ext.P1 guidelines but that Ext.P4
rank list has been issued in its gross
violation, since ineligible persons have been included in it, while qualified persons have
been either excluded or given lower ranks.
3. The petitioner contends that
respondents 2 and 3, who have been shown as Rank Nos.5 and 6 in Ext.P4, are not eligible
to be even included therein, since they are
not residing within 5 km from the Farm in
WPC 6843/18
4
question and therefore, that their inclusion is in violation of the first clause in Ext.P1 guidelines. He, therefore, prays that the 1 st respondent be directed to exclude respondents 2 and 3 and to cancel their appointments, if
any granted.
4. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel – Sri.John K. George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent – Sri.Millu Dandapani, submitted that a counter affidavit has been placed on record, wherein, it has been explained that no preference has been given to any candidate and that all of them have been included in the rank list implicitly based on the selection criteria, as has been fixed in Ext.P1. He conceded that one of the guidelines for selection was that all candidates must be
WPC 6843/18
5
residing within 5 km from the Farm in question but pointed out that respondents 2 and 3 have produced Exts.R1(c) and R1(d) certificates from the concerned Village Officer certifying that they are residing within such distance from the Farm. He then added that the only other contention urged by the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified for
appointment as they are inexperienced, but explained that this is of no relevance because experience was not a criteria for evaluation while conducting the recruitment as per the notification, particularly because there is nothing therein to show that any preference is to be given to the candidates who have prior
experience. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
5. Sri.T.R.Harikumar – learned counsel
appearing for the party respondents, submitted
WPC 6843/18
6
that the only allegation made by the petitioner against Ext.P4 Rank List is that
his clients ought not to have been included as
Rank Nos.5 and 6 respectively, since they are
not residing within 5 kmfrom the Farm in
question. He submitted that this is factually incorrect and that the petitioner has made this allegation in a conjectural manner, without being supported by any material or document being placed on record. He added that, in any event of the matter, the petitioner is ranked 25 in Ext.P4 and
therefore, that his challenge against
inclusion of his clients would be of no relevance as far as his chances of being
appointed are concerned. He, therefore, prayed
that this Writ Petition be dismissed, since it
is more or less in the nature of a public litigation, which is not maintainable.
WPC 6843/18
7
6. I have considered the afore
submissions of the parties and have examined the materials available on record.
7. As rightly pointed out by Sri.Millu
Dandapani, the only contention raised by the petitioner against respondents 2 and 3 is that they are not residing within 5 km from the Farm in question. Of course, he has an adjunct case that they have no prior experience and therefore, ineligible to be included in the list. However, the fact remains that going by the notification, experience is not a criteria and going by Exts.R1(c) and R1(d), the Village Officer has certified that both respondents 2 and 3 are residing within 5 km from the concerned Farm. I cannot, therefore, find any cause in favour of the petitioner to continue with this Writ Petition on the files of this Court any further.
WPC 6843/18
8
In the afore circumstances, I dismiss this
Writ Petition and approve Ext.P4, thus allowing the 1 st respondent to continue the proceedings pursuant thereto in terms of law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR
JUDGE
WPC 6843/18
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINE ISSUED BY THE IST SELECTION OF CONTRACT WORKERS FOR IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/2/20 .. SECRETARY ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/2/201.... SECRETARY ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LSGD SUB DIVISION, PEERMADU. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.03.2018 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD ROADS SECTION PERUMEDU.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. H.D.F/K.D.E/62/2014 AND ADVERTISEMENTS CALLING FOR INTERESTED CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF UNSKILLED LABOURS AT THE KOLAHALAMEDU FARM DATED 29.02.2016. EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE INTERVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 11.07.2017. EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ATTESTING THAT THE RESPONDENT 2 RESIDE WITHIN 5 KMS FROM
WPC 6843/18
10
THE KLD BOARD FARM AT KOLAHALAMEDU DATED 16.03.2016.
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ATTESTING THAT THE RESPONDENT 3 RESIDE WITHIN 5 KMS FROM THE KLD BOARD FARM AT KOLAHALAMEDU DATED 9.3.2016.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the admission of respondents in rank list despite non-residence within 5 km violates the recruitment guidelines.
Whether diversity in residence and experience justifies excluding eligible candidates from the rank list.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable as a public litigation against the board proceeding.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
ANISH J.
THE KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIMITED
JOBIN V J
SUNITHA S
GIJO JOHN
SUJITH S
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
