IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1900 of 2010()
1. KALADHARAN, S/O.P.A.KITTA,
... Petitioner
2. PUSHPALATHA.K.N, W/O.RAMANKUTTY,
3. PAZHANIKUTTY, S/O.MAYAN,
4. P.P.RUGMINI, W/O.PADMANABHAN,
5. V.SASIKALA, W/O.K.RAJARATNAM,
6. R.PRASANNAKUMARI, D/O.RAMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. CHIEF EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :03/02/2011
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1900 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The appellants are the unsuccessful writ petitioners who
approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P3 select list and also to
declare that the selection process for appointment from among persons
registered in the Employment Exchange should be on the basis of their
seniority of registration in the Employment Exchange.
2. The appellants are stated as having registered with the
Employment Exchange, Palakkad and Ext.P1 is a copy of the registration
card issued to one of them. By virtue of their registration, in connection with
the process of selection to the post of Part Time Menials, call letters were
issued to the appellants as borne by Ext.P2. The requisite number of
candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, based on which
the selection was conducted by the requisitioning authority and Ext.P3 select
list of 41 persons was published; whereby the appellants/petitioners
happened to be left out which made them to approach this Court by filing the
writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ext.P3
W.A. No.1900 of 2010
– 2 –
select list has been prepared in an unscientific manner without any
regard to the seniority in the matter of registration in the Employment
Exchange which ought not to have been pursued as a basis in the
process of selection and appointment by the governmental authorities .
It is also stated that by virtue of the course adopted by the concerned
respondents the appellants who happened to be seniors in the matter of
registration in the Employment Exchange have been left out while their
juniors have been given appointment.
4. The contention of the appellants/petitioners was
considered by the learned Single Judge and interference was declined,
holding that no vested right under any specific provision of law has
been pointed out in support of their contention, which in turn is the
subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal.
5. Going by the nature of the contentions, it is to be
primarily noted that the appellants who were seeking to quash Ext.P3
select list have not chosen to implead the parties who have been
selected as per in Ext.P3 and the proceedings are to fail on this score
alone.
6. With regard to the merit of the contentions, there is
nothing wrong on the part of the requisitioning authority in having
subjected the credentials of the persons sponsored from the
W.A. No.1900 of 2010
– 3 –
Employment Exchange to scrutiny before appointing the eligible
persons. None of the grounds raised in support of the writ petition as
well as the writ appeal does serve any purpose. The writ appeal is
dismissed accordingly.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns