The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by selected employees acting as respondents in an original writ petition. The court held that re-agitating issues of the petitioner's locus standi and the original judgment's findings on qualifications was beyond the scope of review.
Dismissal of the review petition.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1943
RP NO. 868 OF 2021
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17612/2019 DATED 5.11.2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT)
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN THE WP(C):
1 SHEEBA. T.V, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.SAMSON, T.V.BHAVAN, OORAVILA, ERICHALLOOR, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695128.2 ANJU P.V., AGED 29 YEARS W/O. SHIBIN, KADAKAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695128.BY ADVS.
G.SUDHEER
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WP(C):
1 SREENU. S.S., AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SREEKANTHAN A., SREE BHAVAN, VELIYAMKOTTUKONAM, KIZHAKKEKARA, AYIRA P.O., PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503.2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.3 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.4 KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695506, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.5 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695506, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.BY ADV N.UNNIKRISHNAN
BY ADV.R.T.PRADEEP
SR.GP. REKHA S
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 868 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 17612/2019 2
O R D E R
Respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition are the
review petitioners. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the selection of review petitioners to the post of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operators on contract basis for implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme. Pursuant to the notification, a walk-in-interview was conducted. Review petitioners were selected and were appointed. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition contending that walk-in-interview was not properly conducted and only qualified person did not accept the job. Consequently, review petitioners were selected. The contention of the review petitioners was that they did not satisfy the essential condition required by the notification. Hence, the selection process was challenged. This court took note of the fact that the writ petitioner was not an applicant. Having regard to this and the specific contention of the Panchayath as well as respondents 5
RP NO. 868 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 17612/2019 3
and 6 in the writ petition that the writ petitioner has no locus standi and that the principle of the public interest litigation is unknown to service jurisprudence, this court declined those contentions and held that the petitioner has locus standi, especially when an illegality is brought to the notice. After having dealt with this, this court held that the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition did not satisfy the requisite qualification. Hence, holding that the selection was improper and irregular directed that the review petitioners shall be terminated forthwith. The Panchayath was directed to call for fresh applications for conducting a transparent selection process.
RP NO. 868 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 17612/2019 4
fact that he himself did not apply cumulatively indicated that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. Since these are issues which have already been considered and answered by this court, re-agitation of that issue is beyond the scope of a review petition.
RP NO. 868 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 17612/2019 5
can only attribute motives to the writ petitioner for having moved this court. That cannot, at any rate, to be considered as a ground for seeking review.
sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
RP NO. 868 OF 2021 IN
WP(C) 17612/2019
6
APPENDIX OF RP 868/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 |
TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BYKERALA STATE RURAL WOMEN'S ELECTRONICSINDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.DATED 27.10.2020. |
|---|---|
Annexure A2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OFHUSBAND OF THE 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER. |
Annexure A3 |
TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDSPERTAINING TO THE TREATMENT OF THE SONOF THE 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER. |
Annexure A4 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.III(3) OFTHE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH APPOINTING1ST REVIEW PETITIONER. |
Annexure A5 |
TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BYTHE SECRETARY OF 4TH RESPONDENTPANCHAYATH NO.A2-6077/21 DATED30.10.2021. |
Annexure A6 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(ORDI)NO.1549/11/LSGD DATED 29.6.2011 ISSUEDBY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. |
Annexure A7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(ORDI)NO.952/12/LSGD DATED 29.3.2012 ISSUED BYTHE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. |
RESPONDENT’S/SEXHIBITS: |
|
ANNEXURE-R1(A) |
A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED23.11.2021 SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TOINFORMATION ACT BY SHRI.A.SREEKANTAN,FATHER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1. |
ANNEXURE-R1(B) |
A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER NO.A2-6581/21 DATED 14.12.2021 ISSUED BYPREETHA S.NAIR, STATE PUBLIC INFORMATIONOFFICER & JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,. KARODEGRAMA PANCHAYATH. |
ANNEXURE-R1(C) |
A TRUE COPY OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER FORTHE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2021. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioners could establish any ground for reversing the order terminating their selection.
Whether the decision of the writ petition dismissed the challenge regarding the petitioner's locus standi and eligibility.
Anju P.V.
SREENU. S.S.
State of Kerala
The Director of Panchayats
Karode Grama Panchayat
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court