IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16325 of 2004(R)
1. BARATHARAJAN R., S/O.K.B.RAMASWAMI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. KERALA KALAMANDALAM,
3. RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
5. KALAMANDALAM TRIPUNITHURA SASI,
6. KALAMANDALAM HARIDASAN (VARAVOOR),
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,KALAMANDALAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/08/2007
O R D E R
Antony Dominic, J.
========================
W.P(C).No.16325 of 2004
========================
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner had applied for the post of Second Grade
Instructor – Kathakali-Maddhalam in the second respondent. It is
stated that he was called for an interview and practical test and
Ext.P8 is the memo issued in this behalf. Eventually, on
completion of selection process, respondents 5 and 6 were
selected and appointed and they have joined duty with effect
from 1.6.2004.
2. Grounds on which the selection of respondents 5 and 6 is
sought to be invalidated are those contained in paragraph 4 of
the Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, Recruitment
Committee consisted of two persons, who were teachers of
respondents 5 and 6. It is also stated that one of the members
of the Selection Committee was related to the fifth respondent
and that the sixth respondent was working in the organisation on
temporary basis. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
WP(C)16325/04 -: 2 :-
respondents 5 and 6 it is admitted that two members of the
Recruitment Committee were their Teachers. But the counter
affidavit proceeds to say that there were other students of the
second respondent organisation, who did not succeed in the
selection process. Allegation that one of the members of the
Recruitment Committee is related to the fifth respondent is also
seen denied.
3. In a selection process and that too in an organisation like
the second respondent, it is not unnatural that Teachers of the
organisation could be members of Recruiment Committee and
that the students of the organisation could have participated as
applicants. That by itself, cannot invalidate the selection.
Therefore, participation of the two members in the Recruitment
Committee does not advance the case of the petitioner in any
manner. I am also not prepared to accept the allegation that one
of the members of the Committee is related to the fifth
respondent in the absence of any material and in the face of its
denial. Further, even if the fifth respondent has worked in the
second respondent in a temporary capacity, that cannot render
him ineligible for the post, but would only be an added
WP(C)16325/04 -: 3 :-
advantage.
I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Antony Dominic,
Judge.
ess 1/8