Allowed

Rajimol v. State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary

Kerala HC18 Mar 2024WP(C)/8413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a person whose family lands were acquired for industry establishment has a preferential right to appointment in unskilled categories. The Court clarified this right exists only during open recruitment on merit, and rejected the claim that a parent can transfer this preference to a child.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared to have a preferential right to claim appointment in any permanent casual labour worker category during direct recruitment or via employment exchange.

Rajimol Vs State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO.8413OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAJIMOL,AGED 36 YEARS, W/O SUJILAL,
SRI NILAYAM, KALARI PANMANA,
CHAVARA.P.O KOLLAM, PIN - 691583

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.VRINDA VARMA
V.K.HEMA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695001

¶11

2 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695001

¶12

3 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695001

¶13

4 THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED SHANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

5 KMML LAPA CONSTRUCTION AND LABOUR CONTRACT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,REG.NO.Q.1354 , SANKARA MANGALAM CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691583, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. BY ADVS.ADVOCATE GENERAL SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED

¶15

GP SRI. PRINCY XAVIER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶18

¶19

BASANT BALAJI , J.

¶20

------------------------------

¶21

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶22

-----------------------------------

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of March 2024

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner states that, for the establishment of the 4th

¶26

respondent, the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, land was acquired from

¶27

the residents of the Chavara Area after giving an undertaking that the

¶28

evicted persons would get priority of employment with the 4th respondent in the works category. Accordingly, the land of Sri. T.G.

¶29

Kumaran, the grandfather of the petitioner, was also acquired for the

¶30

project and the 2nd respondent had issued an identity card in his name

¶31

for business displacement on acquisition. Thereafter, the 1st respondent

¶32

issued a letter to the 2nd respondent on 25.1.2004 clarifying that the

¶33

appointments with the 4th respondent will come under the rule of the

¶34

Government and in any acquisition is done for the establishment of a

¶35

factory, the evictee will be given preference in appointment if they come

¶36

equal with other employees. It was made clear that whenever the

¶37

company publishes a notification calling for applications, the evictees

¶38

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶39

¶40

can apply directly. Thereafter, the grandfather of the petitioner

¶41

submitted a request to the 4th respondent to consider the name of his daughter, Ms. Radha, to any unskilled employment after relinquishing his right. Ext.P5 is the copy of the relinquishment letter. Consequently,

¶42

Ms. Rahda, the mother of the petitioner was given temporary work through the 5th respondent society for a limited time during the period of 2013. Ext.P6 is the experience certificate. The petitioner contends

¶43

that on 11.7.2002, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by the management of the 4th respondent and the representatives of LAPA (Land Acquired People's Association) in which in paragraph 7 it is

¶44

mentioned that before commencing the operation, the LAPA shall prepare a list of members to be included as beneficiaries of the society

¶45

from among the evictees whose family members have not so far got employment in the company and the list shall be furnished to the management for their records.

¶46

On 07.10.2016 the 2nd respondent has issued a letter as a

¶47

reply for the queries made that the LAPA society handed over a list of

¶48

candidates to the 4th respondent for appointment to the post of

¶49

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶50

¶51

unskilled temporary labour but the name of the petitioner’s mother is not included and her claim for appointment cannot be

¶52

considered. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the 4th respondent requesting to consider her claim for appointment under

¶53

unskilled employment along with Ext.P9, the letter of relinquishment given by her mother. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶54

“ (1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and direct the 4th respondent to consider petitioner on a preferential and reservation basis for the appointment in any of Permanent casual labour worker category.

¶55

(2) The partial act of the 5th respondent to exclude the name of the petitioner and three other persons from the recommendation list for employment is politically motivated and hence to be interfered.

¶56

(3) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to take appropriate action in a time bound manner. ”

¶57

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent in

¶58

which it is admitted that the property of the petitioner’s grandfather

¶59

was acquired by the establishment of the unit in the year 1977. It is

¶60

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶61

¶62

also stated that the land was acquired after paying compensation

¶63

provided under the Land Acquisition Act and Rules. As a courtesy, in addition to the compensation paid, the company gave preference to one person from each family whose lands had been acquired for any appointment to the worker category in the company. It was made clear that the preference would be applied only if the person in the preferential category participated in the open selection process and if all criteria were found to be equal, the preference would be given. With respect to the allegation that the petitioner’s family was excluded from the list handed over by the LAPA society it is stated that among the 927

¶64

LAPA contract workers working with LAPA society, 733 were listed as direct contract workers of the company in the year 2020, and the petitioner’s mother was not included in the list. The list was prepared by the LAPA Society considering certain eligibility criteria and the respondent company has only absorbed the worker on the basis of the preference list submitted by the society. The exclusion of the petitioner’s mother from the list was due to the fact that she was not working with the 4th respondent at the time when the list was drawn up. It is also

¶65

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶66

¶67

stated in the counter affidavit that, even if the mother of the petitioner was included in the list, the petitioner cannot claim inclusion in the list based on her mother’s inclusion. The employment on the contract is not hereditary, and the petitioner’s mother cannot relinquish her

¶68

employment in favor of the petitioner.

¶69

As far as the petitioner is concerned, she has no case that she

¶70

was engaged by LAPA as a contract worker. The claim is based on the contention that her mother was engaged by LAPA. The claim of the petitioner cannot be termed as compassionate appointment as her claim is based on a relinquishment letter issued by the mother. It is further stated that compassionate employment is permissible only in the case of legal heirs of permanent employees of the company. Preferential category candidates can avail of the benefits of preference in recruitment only when they have attended a written test or interview,

¶71

and when all other things are equal with other qualified candidates, the preference will be given to the candidates belonging to the preferential category. The petitioner has to respond to the notification issued from

¶72

time to time, and thereafter, the right to get preference would depend

¶73

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶74

¶75

upon the outcome of consideration for selection. Therefore, the 4th

¶76

respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶77

The petitioner belongs to a family whose lands have been

¶78

acquired for establishment of a unit of the 4th respondent. Exts.P1, P2

¶79

and P4 give preference to the persons who have been evicted or whose

¶80

lands have been taken for the establishment of the unit of the 4th

¶81

respondent. It does not give an indefeasible right to get direct appointment on the basis of the preferential category. The

¶82

4th respondent company gives preference to one person from each

¶83

family whose lands have been acquired to the worker category in the

¶84

company. The preference is given when there is an open selection and

¶85

that too on the basis of a notification issued by the company. The 4th respondent has taken a conscious decision on the basis of the directions

¶86

issued by the Government that preference would be given to the

¶87

evictees in giving employment in the unit as and when their service is

¶88

required. A preferential claim is only made when two persons with

¶89

similar qualifications apply for the post and become successful. In such

¶90

a case, going by Exts.P1, P2 and P4, the petitioner will be entitled to

¶91

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶92

¶93

claim preferential right over a person who is similarly situated in the

¶94

open category. Therefore, it is declared that the petitioner has a preferential right to claim an appointment in any permanent casual labour worker category when direct recruitment is made or recruitment is made through employment exchange. The petitioner is free to raise the preferential claim along with the application when notifications are called for.

¶95

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶96

Sd/-

¶97

BASANT BALAJI , JUDGE

¶98

¶99

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶100

¶101

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8413/2022

¶102

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit-P1`	`COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONFERENCE DATED` `29-06-1977` `CONVENED` `IN` `THE` `COLLECTOR'S` `CHAMBER FOR DISCUSSING THE PROBLEMS RELATED` `TO TITANIUM COMPLEX, CHAVARA`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-01-1989` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THIS RESPECT` `OF THE EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE TO PERSONAL` `DISPLACEMENT`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE` `COMPANY BEARING NO.322`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST` `RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS` `DATED 25-01-2004 41085/H3/03/IND`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHING LETTER DATED` `30-12-2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.KUMARAN TO 4TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P6`	`EXPERIENCE` `CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED` `BY` `5TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 08/03/2021`
`Exhibit-P7`	`LETTER FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KMML` `SUBMITTED A LETTER TO ADDL. SECRETARY, OF` `GOVERNMENT DATED 17TH JUNE 2010`
`Exhibit-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/09/2021` `NUMBERED AS H/288/2020/IND RECEIVED FROM` `INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT`
`Exhibit-P9`	`THE RELINQUISHING LETTER ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER MOTHER DATED 12-10-2021`
`Exhibit-P10`	`COPY OF THE REGISTERED POSTAL RECEIPT NUMBERS` `497359355IN ALONG WITH APPLICATION DATED` `17/11/21`
`Exhibit-P11`	`COPY` `OF` `THE` `SECONDARY` `SCHOOL` `LEAVING` `CERTIFICATE`
`Exhibit-P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER` `NUMBERED AS 889065317856`
`Exhibit-P13`	`COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING` `ARRIVED BETWEEN THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER DATED 09/11/2022`
	`FORWARDED` `BY` `THE` `PETITIONER` `TO` `PUBLIC` `INFORMATION OFFICER, KMML .`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `REPLY` `FROM` `PUBLIC` `INFORMATION OFFICER OF 4TH RESPONDENT KERALA`
	`MINERALS AND METALS DATED 24/11/2022 TO` `PETITIONER`

¶103

W.P. (C) No.8413 of 2022

¶104

¶105

`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `PETITIONER TO 4TH` `DATED 11/11/2022`	`E LETTER SUBMITTED` `RESPONDENT, PUBLIC`	`BY THE` `OFFICER`
`Exhibit P17` `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `29/11/2022 FROM` `KERALA METAL AND`	`THE` `REPLY` `LETTER` `PUBLIC INFORMATION` `MINERALS`	`DATED` `OFFICER`
`Exhibit R4(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `16.03.2020`	`MINUTES OF THE MEETI`	`NG DATED`
`Exhibit R4(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `01.01.1988`	`G.O.(RT).NO.11/88/I`	`D DATED`
Corrected

Rajimol v. State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajimol v. State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary

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.R.Ajaykumar, Vs the Co-Operative Service Examination Board

R. Prema Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Mary Prasanna M. a Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Baiju P.G, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Shailaja C. Vs State of Kerala

Tara.G., Vs the Chairman