Disposed

Manu Mohan v. Village Officer

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022WP(C)/1760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning EWS reservation recruitment disputed by 5th respondent. Court directed additional 6th respondent to decide appeal on merits while maintaining status quo of petitioner's appointment.

What did the court decide?

Director to consider appeal within two weeks after hearing parties; appointment status quo continued till final order.

What the court decided

Manu Mohan Vs Village Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1760 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1 MANU MOHAN

¶6

AGED 29 YEARS

¶7

S/O. MOHANAN.K.K., MANU NIVAS, 142/13,
VILAYANCODE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KADANNAPPALLI
VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 504

¶8

2 MOHANAN.K.K., MANU NIVAS, 142/13, VILAYANCODE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KADANNAPPALLI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 504

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

M.V.AMARESAN
S.S.ARAVIND

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 VILLAGE OFFICER KADANNAPPALLI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 306

¶13

2 TAHSILDAR, PAYYANJUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 307

¶14

3 SECRETARY, KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, OPP.GOVT.AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695 001

¶15

4THE ADMINISTRATOR,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, SOUTH NADA, EAST NADA,
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 101

¶16

5 RAJITH.A.K., S/O. LATE JAYARAMAKRISHNAN.A., SUKRUTHAM HOUSE, THOOVAKKOD P.O., CHEMMANCHERI VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN673 304

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶19

ADDL.R6 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TALIPARAMBA, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, REVENUE
TOWER, COURT ROAD, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT PIN - 670 141

¶20

[ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/2/22
IN I.A:1/22 IN WP(C) 1760/22]
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN MANI
S.JAYANT
JACKSON JOHNY
VARGHESE SABU
SETHULAKSHMI K.K.
DIANA LAURANCE PAUL

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP,
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R4,
SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R3

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶25

¶26

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).No.1760 of 2022

¶28

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2022

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶31

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1^st respondent to act on Exhibit P7 and to take decision thereon based on the monthly income of the petitioners as on the date of Exhibit P1 notification, within a time frame.

¶32

ii. To declare that income status of the petitioner to avail E.W.S reservation for Exhibit P1 recruitment is the income of the petitioners as on the date of Exhibit P1 notification and not the date of petitioner's application for income certificate.

¶33

iii. To further direct the 1^st respondent, not to invalidate/ recall/cancel Exhibit P5 income certificate validly issued by him, till a decision is taken on Exhibit P7.

¶34

iv. To direct the respondents No.3 and 4 not to invalidate/recall/cancel Exhibit P4 appointment order issued to the 1^st petitioner.

¶35

v. To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (SIC)

¶36

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶37

¶38

Exhibit P1 is a notification issued by 3^rd respondent for recruitment to various posts in 4^th respondent Guruvayur Devaswam. Exhibit P1 is dated 29.02.2020. The 1^st petitioner applied for the post of R.M.O. He claimed reservation under Economically Weaker Section (E.W.S) quota. According to the petitioners, their monthly income during the period of Ext.P1 notification was Rs.20,219/-. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 income certificate correctly noting the same, but with a slight variation. The 1^st petitioner, after the qualifying written test and interview, was placed Rank No.1 under E.W.S quota. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner was given advice by the 3^rd respondent and later the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P4 appointment letter. The 5^th respondent, who is next to the 1^st petitioner in Ext.P3 rank list, submitted a complaint before the 1^st respondent contending that the petitioners’ income exceeds the limit prescribed for E.W.S reservation and hence Ext.P5 income certificate issued to the 1^st petitioner is wrong and requested to recall Ext.P5. Based on that, the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P8 order by which Ext.P5 is recalled. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the 1^st petitioner filed Ext.P9 before the additional 6^th

¶39

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶40

¶41

respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that before taking a decision on Ext.P9, the appointment order issued to the 1^st petitioner will be cancelled by the Devaswom Authorities. Hence this writ petition.

¶42

It is stated that even though the appointment order is received by the 1^st petitioner, he sought time from the authorities to produce E.W.S. certificate and hence, if final orders are not passed in Ext.P9 appeal by the 6^th respondent, there will be irreparable loss to the petitioners.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel for 3^rd respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶44

It is an admitted fact that as per Ext.P8 order, Ext.P5 is already recalled. It is also an admitted fact that the 1^st petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal against Ext.P8 order. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 10.02.2022, this Court passed an order of status quo till 15.02.2022. The same was extended on 15.02.2022, till this date. The grievance of the petitioners is that if the appeal is not

¶45

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶46

¶47

considered, the Devaswom authorities will recall the appointment order issued to the 1^st petitioner in the light of Ext.P8. The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that the 5^th respondent filed W.P.(C). No.30183 of 2021 and he has got a grievance against the issuance of appointment order to the 1^st petitioner.

¶48

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there can be a direction to the additional 6^th respondent to consider Ext.P9 and there can be a direction to continue the status quo order regarding the appointment of the 1^st petitioner till final orders are passed in Ext.P9 appeal. The additional 6^th respondent will also give an opportunity of hearing to the 1^st petitioner and the 5^th respondent before passing final orders in the appeal. All the contentions of the 5^th respondent are left open and he can raise all those contentions in W.P.(C). No. 30183 of 2021.

¶49

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶50

The additional 6^th respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P9

¶51

in accordance to law, after giving an

¶52

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶53

¶54

opportunity of hearing to the 1^st petitioner and the 5^th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

Till final orders are passed in Ext.P9, the order of status quo regarding the appointment based on Ext.P4 will continue.

¶56

All the contentions of the petitioners and the 5^th respondent are left open and they can raise all their contentions before the additional 6^th respondent.

¶57

sd/-

¶58

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶59

¶60

W.P.(C).No.1760/2022

¶61

¶62

APPENDIX OF WPC 1760/2022

¶63

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING` `NO.583/R1/KDRB/2019 DATED 29.01.2020` `ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED` `21.02.2020 PLACED BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED` `29.10.2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER` `BEARING NO.B1-7661/2014 DATED` `3.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `TO THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF INCOME CERTIFICATE` `BEARING N.88/2021 DATED 01.11.2021` `ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE` `PETITIONERS`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO.G4-` `14196/2021 DATED 03.01.2022 ISSUED BY` `1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P6A`	`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED` `06.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE` `1ST PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 7.1.2022`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.G4-` `14196/2021 DATED 07/01/2022 ISSUED BY` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O.,` `TALIPARAMBA AGAINST EXHIBIT P8 ON` `07/02/2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING` `NO.1710/R2/2021/KDRB DATED 05/02/2022` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE` `PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY EMAIL DATED` `07/02/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`

Manu Mohan v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manu Mohan v. Village Officer

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

Koyamon, S/O.Koyakutty Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sherifa Beevi Vs the Divisional Forest Officer

Nandiyode Grama Panchayath Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Joy V.S. Vs State of Kerala

C.B.Udayakumar Vs the Divisional Forest Officer

Dr.Ajitha Kumari . K., Vs State of Kerala