Dismissed

Aneesh Sasidharan v. Kerala Co. Operative Milk Marketing Federation

Kerala HC16 Aug 2022WP(C)/1283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that no vested right to appointment accrues upon inclusion in a rank list when vacancies are abolished by the government. The writ petition was dismissed as it was impermissible to direct appointment where no vacancy existed, though the petitioner's contentions were left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner retains liberty to seek further employment with MILMA under future vacancies.

Aneesh Sasidharan Vs Kerala Co. Operative Milk… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANEESH SASIDHARAN

¶8

AGED 30 YEARS

¶9

S/O P K SASIDHARAN,RESIDING AT THUNDIPARAMBIL, THELLIYOOR P.O, VENNIKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689544 , PIN - 689544

¶10

BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 KERALA CO OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION (MILMA),MILMA BHAVAN,

¶13

PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695004, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR , PIN - 695004

¶14

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA CO OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION (MILMA), MILMA BHAVAN,

¶15

PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695004.

¶16

3 ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S UNION LTD P.B. NO.2212, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI , PIN - 682024, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶17

BY ADV LATHA ANAND SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2022,

¶19

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner says that he is placed as Rank No.7 in Ext.P5 Rank List, prepared by the

¶24

1^st respondent – Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (MILMA), for being appointed to the post of Assistant Marketing Officer under their services. He asserts that six vacancies were notified and that Rank No.1 refused to accept the invitation; thus making him eligible to be appointed to the sixth vacancy. He says that, however, the MILMA has not offered him such an opportunity and thus that, he has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

¶25

Sri.T.P.Pradeep – learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner, submitted that the 1^st Rank holder was offered the Advice Memo, but he

¶27

refused to join and was, in fact, granted extension for such purpose until 28.10.2020. He

¶28

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

argued that since he did not join even on that

¶31

date, his client ought to have been appointed in the resultant vacancy immediately. He submitted that this has not been done by the MILMA and that they now take refuge under a subsequent Government Order dated 05.11.2020, through which, the sixth post has been abolished and the staff pattern modified accordingly. The learned counsel contended that this will not make any change to the rights obtained by his client to be appointed to the services of the MILMA; and thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

¶32

Smt.Latha Anand – learned Standing Counsel for the MILMA, on the other hand,

¶33

submitted that mere inclusion of the petitioner in the Rank List will not give him any vested right to be appointed; and that her client can offer him Advice Memo only based on all the

¶34

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

relevant and germane inputs, including as to whether there is any vacancy available. She affirmed that, the 1^st Rank holder did not join, though he was given time until 28.10.2020 to do so; but that within a week's time thereafter, the staff pattern had been modified by the Government, through order dated 05.11.2020, thus incapacitating her client from appointing the petitioner. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶37

When I assess and evaluate the afore

¶38

submissions, it is indubitable that law has now been well settled by a Full Bench of this Court

¶39

in Unnikrishnan Nair G.S & others v. State of Kerala & Others [ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 775] that mere inclusion of a person's name in the Rank List will not give him any vested right to seek

¶40

appointment. It is the employer who has to

¶41

decide whether an appointment has to be

¶42

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

offered; and for this purpose, certainly, the

¶45

number of vacancies available is also one of the most relevant factors.

¶46

In the case at hand, unfortunately for

¶47

the petitioner, the staff pattern applicable to the MILMA was modified by the Government on 05.11.2020. Until then, there were six vacancies of Assistant Marketing Officers available in their services and the 1^st Rank holder did not join until 28.10.2020.

¶48

Therefore, even though the petitioner

¶49

may legitimately have a grievance that he was not offered Advice Memo between 29.10.2020 and 04.11.2020, this would only be an academic issue because, as I have already said above, he

¶50

does not obtain any vested right to be appointed, until the memo is issued to him.

¶51

That apart, the petitioner does not

¶52

have a case that anybody junior to him in the

¶53

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶54

¶55

Rank List has been offered appointment.

¶56

certainly the misfortune of the petitioner that the staff pattern of the MILMA was modified with effect from 05.11.2020; but once that had been done, it would be impermissible for this Court to direct them to appoint him to the 6^th vacancy, which is no longer available.

¶57

Resultantly, I am compelled to dismiss this writ petition; however, reserving full liberty to the petitioner to seek further employment with the MILMA as and when any vacancy arises or under a new notification; for which purpose, all his contentions are left open.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

rp/SAS

¶62

WP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2022

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1283/2022

¶65

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶66

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. EU/P&A/55/2019 DATED 25/10/2019
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED FOR WRITTEN EXAMINATION DATED 20/12/2019
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVISE LETTER FOR THE CERTIFICATE/CREDENTIAL VERIFICATION AND GROUP DISCUSSION DATED 22/08/2020
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 04/09/2020
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY 1STRESPONDENT DATED 08/09/2020
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08/02/2021
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA ONLINE DAILY DATED 30/09/2020 ALLEGING THE CORRUPT PRACTICES IN RELATION WITH THE APPOINTMENTS IN RESPONDENT'S OFFICE
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPIES OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2021
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPIES OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2021
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT FOR SENDING THE EXHIBIT P8 & P9

Aneesh Sasidharan v. Kerala Co. Operative Milk Marketing Federation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh Sasidharan v. Kerala Co. Operative Milk Marketing Federation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cube Modular Desings Vs Lal O.B.

Dr.Tara L Vs State of Kerala

Biju M D, Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

C.P.Jibu Vs State of Kerala

M.V. Sunny, Vs the State of Kerala

Aswathi Krishna R. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University