A writ petition challenged the appointment of a lower-ranked candidate as Mission Co-ordinator alleging back-door selection despite a valid rank list placing the petitioner higher. The court found the appointment flowed from a fresh notification and select list, held the earlier bench precedent inapplicable to these facts, and dismissed the 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 EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
JIN MATHEW
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.P.K.ITTIMATHEW, PYNADATH HOUSE,
POICKATTUSSERY, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE,
CHENGAMANAD P.O., ALUVA - 683 578.
BY ADV
SIBI KARUN
RESPONDENTS:
1THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, 4TH FLOOR,
VIKHAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
2THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SOCIETY FOR ASSISTANCE TO FISHER WOMEN (SAF),
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, EAST KADUNGALLOOR,
U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA - 683 102.
3 PREETHA SALU VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERIYAKADAVU, KANNAMALI P.O., KOCHI - 682 008.BY ADVS.
IMAMA GREGORIOUS KARAT, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.A.G.VISWAMBHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a MBA degree holder and worked as a Mission Co-ordinator on a contract basis with the first respondent. When the first respondent published a notification for appointment of Mission Co-ordinator on contract basis petitioner applied. According to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1, Ext.P2 select list was brought on 01.11.2016 in which the petitioner is serial No.5. However, later it was found that the first respondent has given appointment to the third respondent. Thus, the petitioner alleges that the third respondent was preferred over the petitioner and admittedly she is ranked below him. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the denial of opportunity of petitioner and appointment of the third respondent through the back door is not justified. It is further contended that there was some foul play at the hands of
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -3-
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 while the third respondent was appointed. The third respondent, according to the petitioner was appointed in a walk-in-interview on 23.06.2017 when Ext.P2 rank list was valid upto 18.11.2017.
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -4-
appointed because the second rank holder Smt.Symna S. did not join duty. Therefore, it is contended that there is no malpractice as alleged by the petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -5-
K.J. and Others (2021 (2) KHC 550) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137) .
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -6-
by the counsel for the petitioner may seem to be attractive. But the fact remains that it is not in pursuance to Ext.P2 list that the third respondent has been appointed. Admittedly, a fresh selection process had taken place at the hands of the first respondent before the third respondent was preferred. Turning to the bench decision of this Court in the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of considered view that the principles laid down by the Bench in the judgment cited supra will not apply to the facts of the case. In the writ petition the selection of the third respondent is questioned on the ground that after the selection process has started, the rules of selection was changed. But it has come on record that a fresh notification for sanction process was commenced and it is pursuant to with that the third respondent was appointed.
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -7-
there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner and the selection process undertaken by the first respondent was perfectly legal and her selection cannot be interfered as contended by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
vv
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -8-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41542/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED
ON 1/11/2016 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
11/12/2017 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER(ASSISTANTDIRECTOROF
FISHERIES).
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)
NO.15751/2018 DATED 11/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/12/2018
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.09.2016.
EXHIBIT R2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
12.05.2017.
EXHIBIT R2(C)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
07.06.2017.
EXHIBIT R2(D)A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED
IN THE WEBSITE.
WP(C) NO. 41542 OF 2018 -9-
EXHIBIT R2(E)A COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED
23.06.2017 FOR MISSION CO-ORDINATOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the third respondent's contract appointment as Mission Co-ordinator bypassed the petitioner's higher rank on the Ext.P2 rank list through malpractice.
Whether a fresh selection process conducted by the first respondent was legally valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Biju C.V. Vs. Jashna K.J. and OthersDistinguished¶6
2021 (2) KHC 550
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others Vs. State of GujaratReferred
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137
Jin Mathew
The Director, Directorate of Fisheries
The Executive Director, Society for Assistance to Fisher Women (SAF)
Preetha Salu
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court