Writ petition challenging rank list and order rejecting claim for marks for prior experience. Court held it was petitioner's burden to prove continuous service; rehearsing factual dispute on working days in writ petition is not justified.
None; challenge against rank list and order is rejected.
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 V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21048 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
AMBILY RAJEEV AGED 46 YEARS W/O RAJEEV, ANGANWADI WORKER AT ANGANWADI NO.20, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAMADAM HOUSE, AYYARKULANGARA, VAIKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM-686146. BY ADVS. SHAJI THOMAS JEN JAISON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012. 3 CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS), CHALAPARAMBU, VAIKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686141. 4 THE CHAIRMAN VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, WEST GATE, W GATE ROAD, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141. 5 VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WEST GATE, W GATE ROAD, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT SREEKALA. A-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21048 of 2021
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2022
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 rank list and Ext.P6 order by which the petitioner's initial challenge before the competent authority was rejected. According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed as
Anganwadi Worker in Ward No.11 of Vaikom Municipality on 07.08.2014 for a period of six months. From 01.07.2017 onwards, she had continuously worked as Anganwardi Worker at Anganwadi No.20, on the strength of an interim order issued by the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal. While so, applications were invited for filling up 11 vacancies of Anganwadi Worker.
The selection process was consisted of Part A and
Part B. Under Part A, marks are allotted for qualifications, training undergone, age, prior
W.P.(C) No.21048 of 2021
-3-
experience etc. and in Part B; marks are allotted based on candidate's skill, interest in serving people, general knowledge etc. The petitioner participated in the interview and was ranked 16. According to the petitioner, the marks granted for prior experience is not correct. For experience, mark is to be awarded at the rate of one mark for each year. Petitioner was awarded only two marks, wrongly reckoning the total number of days on which she had worked as 446.
second respondent Director with the above claim. After careful consideration of the petitioner's contentions and the relevant records, the second
W.P.(C) No.21048 of 2021
-4-
respondent rejected the claim, finding the marks awarded for experience to be correct, since the petitioner had worked only for 446 days.
contended that the computation of working days is wrong and there is absolutely no material to show as to how the number of working days was computed.
for the respondents also.
Having perused Ext.P6 order, which I find to have been rendered after considering all relevant aspects, I find no reason to interfere with the
order in exercise of the power of judicial review. It is the petitioner case that she had worked for more than 446 days and hence, it is her burden to prove the fact. Absolutely no evidence is produced to substantiate the claim of having worked from 01.07.2017 onwards uninterruptedly. Even otherwise, this Court is
W.P.(C) No.21048 of 2021
not expected to enter into such factual disputes while deciding a writ petition filed under Article 226. For the reason aforementioned, the challenge against Exts.P3 and P6 is rejected and the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
W.P.(C) No.21048 of 2021
-6-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21048/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONDUCT CERTIFICATE DATED 06.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE COUNCILLOR OF WARD 11, VAIKOM MUNICIPALIYT. Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2019 TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2019 IN WPC NO.24893 OF 2018 REPORTED IN MANU/KE/5229/2019. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is warranted in interfering with the order dismissing the petitioner's claim of wrongful computation of marks for prior experience.
Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proving continuous service beyond the accepted period.
Ambily Rajeev
State of Kerala
The Director of Women and Child Development
Child Development Project Officer
The Chairman Vaikom Municipality
Vaikom Municipality
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
