IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23527 of 2010(M)
1. A.SUMA, U.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
3. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT,
4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
5. S.JALAJA, JALAJA BHAVAN,
6. ANITA S.LIN, T.C.49/2525,
7. SHIMNA V.S., SANTHA NIVAS,
8. S.JEEJA, 'SWARAGE', T.C.5/1861,
9. K.LAKSHMI, LAKSHMI BHAVAN,
10. LINCY.A.K., CHAITHRAM HOUSE,
11. SREELATHA R.S., SREENILAYA,
12. T.R.SHEELA KUMARI, ANUGRAH,
13. THAHIRABEEVI.H., T.C.52/58 (2),
14. TESSY ABRAHAM, W/O.JESTINE K.J. MASTER,
15. SUNITHA.M.V, GOURESAM, T.C.50/780 (5),
16. PAULIN JOSE, THEKKEDATH,
17. SUSEELA.K., VARICKEMICKAL HOUSE,
18. SULAJA.P., 1/217 JNEO APARTMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.BOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 23527 OF 2010 (M)
=====================
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P5 and
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the post of Women
Protection Officers created vide Ext.P1 order by recruitment by
transfer through PSC, is also sought for.
2. Ext.P1 is the Government Order creating 14 posts of
Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department. The
method of appointment is “through PSC/by transfer appointment”
and the Appointing Authority is the Director of Social Welfare
Department. In pursuance to Ext.P1, Ext.R13(a) letter was issued
by the Appointing Authority to the Government stating that the
Rules permit by transfer appointment otherwise than through PSC
and seeking permission for the constitution of the
Selection/Interview Committee to take further action to make
appointments to the posts.
3. It is seen that approval was granted, based on which
Ext.R13(b), (c) and (d) notifications were issued inviting
applications for the post. In response to the notifications, among
WPC No. 23527/10
:2 :
others, petitioner and the party respondents applied. Selection
process was conducted by the Institute of Management in
Government and Ext.P2 is the short list, where the petitioner and
the party respondents are also included. Shortlisted candidates
were subjected to an interview and call letters of which are
Exts.P3 and P4. Final result of the test and interview conducted
by the IMG was published by Ext.P5, a full text of which is Ext.R13
(f). On the premise that the petitioner is not included in Ext.P5,
this writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
On the other hand, from Ext.R13(f) produced by the party
respondents, it is seen that the petitioner has been included at
Sl.No.21 of the final list.
4. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner
is that, going by Ext.P1, the method of appointment is “through
PSC/by transfer appointment”, and therefore, by transfer
appointment can only be through PSC. The stand taken by the
party respondents is that by transfer appointment is not through
PSC, and therefore, the process adopted is perfectly illegal. It is
also their contention that the petitioner having responded to the
vacancy notification and after taking her chance in the selection
WPC No. 23527/10
:3 :
process, cannot now be permitted to challenge the process
adopted by the Appointing Authority.
5. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits
that the post of Women Protection Officer is not covered by the
Special Rules, and that, by transfer appointment therefore can be
made otherwise than through PSC.
6. Ext.P1 is the Government Order creating the post. The
method of appointment is “through PSC/by transfer appointment”.
Although clarity is lacking in Ext.P1, still, as already noticed,
Ext.R13(a) is the letter issued by the Appointing Authority to the
Secretary to the Government, who issued Ext.P1. In Ext.R13(a),
the Appointing Authority mentioned that by transfer appointment
is possible directly and not through PSC and it is on that basis,
permission of the 1st respondent was sought for the constitution of
the Selection/Interview Committee. This proposal made by the
Appointing Authority was considered by the Government. It is on
that basis, selection process was initiated. This obviously means
that the interpretation given by the Appointing Authority, which is
also now endorsed by the learned Government Pleader, was
accepted by the Government, and it is on that basis, the selection
WPC No. 23527/10
:4 :
process was initiated and completed. Therefore, in the light of the
above, I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the
petitioner that the process of selection could have been only
through PSC.
7. Even otherwise, facts show that it was pursuant to the
above, the posts were notified by Ext.R13(b), (c) and (d) and the
petitioner responded to the notification, appeared in the test and
interview and filed this writ petition only thereafter. In my view,
the principle of estoppel applies and the petitioner cannot be
permitted to challenge the proceedings.
8. Learned Counsel relied on Rule 3 of Part II KS & SSR
and contended that the recruitment could have been only through
PSC. A reading of the writ petition shows that such a ground has
not been raised. In the absence of pleadings, I am not persuaded
to consider this contention now urged.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp