Dismissed

Sangeeth Surendran v. the Chairman

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/1222/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by candidates who alleged the interview panel for the Kombu Teacher post lacked expertise in Kombu. The court held that experts merely assist and cannot award marks, candidates cannot challenge a transparent process after participating, and complainants must object at the time of the interview.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sangeeth Surendran Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SANGEETH SURENDRAN AGED 28 YEARS S/O. P.R SURENDRA MARAR, VADAKKEPATHIPPALIYEL, PALAKKATTUMALA P.O, MARANGATTUPILLI, KOTTAYAM 686 635

¶8

2 MOHANRAJ A.R, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.R AJAN, ALAMPULLY, VARAVOOR P.O, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR 680 582

¶9

BY ADVS. M.R.ARUNKUMAR SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE CHAIRMAN KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, M.G ROAD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

2 KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, M.G ROAD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶14

4 KERALA KALAMANDALAM SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED BY ADV SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SR.GP.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

¶17

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

¶18

22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022

¶22

The petitioners had participated in the interview

¶23

conducted by the Devaswom Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of “Kombu Teacher” in the Vadya Vidyalayam of Guruvayoor Devaswom. The interview panel consisted of a member from the KDRB as Chairman, another member of the KDRB, Chairman of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and two outside experts, Cheranalloor Sankarankutty Marar and Vaikom Venugopal. In the rank list published after interview, the first petitioner is rank No.3 and the 2^nd petitioner, rank No.4. This writ petition is filed alleging that the process of selection is flawed, inasmuch as the outside experts were not Kombu artists and therefore incompetent to assess the expertise of the candidates.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 7(4) of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Rules, 2015

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶27

to contend that the expert in the interview panel should be a person with expert knowledge in the particular subject. According to the learned Counsel, even though Cheranalloor Sankarankutty Marar is a stalwart in Chenda and a Melapramani, he does not have the expertise to assess the performance of candidates suitable for appointment as Kombu Teacher. The other expert, Vaikom Venugopal, is an exponent of Mridangam and cannot also claim requisite expertise in Kombu.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Recruitment Board submitted that the objective of including outside experts is to assist the other panelists in selecting the right candidate. As the expert is not entitled to award marks, the challenge on the premise that the expert did not have sufficient knowledge in the particular subject cannot be countenanced. It is submitted that Cheranelloor Sankarankutty Marar is a stalwart among temple vadyam artists and is an acclaimed helmsman

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶31

(Melapramani). He has deep and thorough knowledge in Chendamelam, Panchavadyam, Kombu, Sanghu, Edakka etc. It is hence preposterous to contend that he does not have sufficient expertise in Kombu, one among the five musical accompaniments for Panchavadhyam. The other expert, Prof. Vaikom Venugopal was the Head of the Department of Mridangam at the Sree Swathi Thirunal College of Music and a former Director of the Kshetra Kalapeedam managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. He has accompanied great exponents of Karnatic music at various cultural events. It is submitted that the experts were included in the interview panel after considering their bio-data. No complaint was raised by the petitioners at the time of interview or even thereafter. Their grievance arose only after publication of the rank list. Learned Counsel contended that having participated in the interview, petitioners cannot turn around and challenge the procedure, on finding that they did not get the

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶34

expected marks.

¶35

In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Kombu is a wind instrument whereas Chenda, Maddalam and Mridangam are percussion instruments. Moreover, Mridangam is not an instrument associated with temple vadyam and therefore, the second expert cannot be attributed with sufficient knowledge in Kombu.

¶36

In the nature of the contentions urged, it is necessary to consider Rule 7(4) of the Kerala Devawom Recruitment Rules, 2015 extracted hereudner;

“7(1) xxxx

7(2) xxxx

7(3) xxxx

7(4) Where the oral test (interview) is conducted by the Board, the Board shall invite the Devaswom Board concerned to appoint a representative to be present and the representative so present may take part in the deliberations of the Board but shall not

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

be entitled to award marks:

¶44

Provided that the Board shall invite, wherever they consider it necessary, any person or persons with expert knowledge in particular subject to be present at the interview to assist the Board but such person or persons shall not be entitled to award marks.”

¶45

From a reading of the Rule, it is evident that the role of the expert is only to assist the interview board and the expert cannot award marks. Going by the bio-data of the experts, the allegation that the experts do not even have requisite knowledge and expertise in Kombu for assisting the interview board is liable to be rejected. I also find merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has no complaint regarding the process of interview till publication of the rank list. It is settled law that after participating in a selection process, the candidates cannot challenge the process on turning out to be unsuccessful or on failing to achieve the requisite benchmark.

¶46

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is

dismissed.

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

RK/vgs

WP(C) NO. 1222 OF 2021

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1222/2021

¶55

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	P1	COPY TRAV PEED 06-2	OF THE CERTIFICATE ANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OM TO THE 1ST PETITION 014	ISSUED KSHETRA ER DATED	BY KALA 28-
EXHIBIT	P2	COPY KERA PETI	OF THE CERTIFICATE LA KALAMANDALAM TO TIONER DATED 29-06-2016	ISSUED THE	BY 2ND
EXHIBIT	P3	COPY KALA TO T	OF THE CERTIFICATE ISS NILAYAM, WADAKKANCHER HE 2ND PETITIONER DATED	UED BY D RY, THRI 29-06-20	URGA SSUR 16
EXHIBIT	P4	COPY SOPA 2ND	OF THE CERTIFICATE NAM SCHOOL OF PANCHAVA PETITIONER DATED 30-05-	ISSUED DYAM TO 2016	BY THE
EXHIBIT	P5	COPY NEDU THE	OF THE CERTIFICATE NGANAD KALA KSHETRAM, 2ND PETITIOENR DATED 13	ISSUED PATTAMBI -04-2020	BY TO
EXHIBIT	P6	COPY THE	OF THE NOTIFICATION 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18	PUBLISHED -3-2020	BY
EXHIBIT	P7	COPY 2ND RESP	OF THE APPLICATION F PETITIONER BEFORE ONDENT DATED 14-05-2020	ILED BY THE	THE 2ND
EXHIBIT	P8	COPY VILA PETI	OF THE CERTIFICATE IS LGE OFFICER, VARAVOOR TIOENR DATED 25-11-2020	SUED BY TO THE	THE 2ND
EXHIBIT	P9	COPY 1ST THE	OF THE REPRESENTATION PETITIONER DATED 19-11 1ST RESPONDENT	FILED BY -2020 BE	THE FORE
EXHIBIT	P10	COPY 2ND THE	OF THE REPRESENTATION PETITIONER DATED 19-11 1ST RESPONDENT.	FILED BY -2020 BE	THE FORE
EXHIBIT	P11	COPY PUBL 18-1	OF THE NOTIFICATION O ISHED BY THE 2ND RESP 2-2020	F RANK ONDENT D	LIST ATED

Sangeeth Surendran v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeth Surendran v. the Chairman

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

C K Rajan, Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

Chandrika K Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Liji A.S Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh L. Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Abdul Rahim, Vs Kerala State Womens Development Corporation Kswdc

Lucyamma Thomas, Vs the Union of India