IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29531 of 2009(J)
1. I.MOHAMMED SULAIMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE MALABAR CEMENTS LTD.,
3. SHRI.R.JAYAPRAKASH,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.29531 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an employee of the 2nd respondent Company.
He is aggrieved by Exts.P14 & P15.
2. In so far as Ext.P14 is concerned, that is the minutes of
the proceedings for selection to the post of Deputy Manger
(Personnel and Administration) Grade M4. This shows that the
Company had invited applications from internal candidates for
filling up the aforesaid post, specifying the qualifications, which are,
Post Graduate Degree in Personnel Management or Post Graduate
Diploma in Personnel Management (equivalent to PG Degree) and a
minimum 10 years relevant experience. The petitioner applied in
response to the notification, and eventually, the 3rd respondent was
selected.
3. Going by Ext.P14, the petitioner’s qualification and
experience noted are as follows:-
“2. Sri.I.Mohammed Sulaiman, Code NO.492,
Officer in Charge, Grade M6
WP(C) No.29531/2009
-2-
MA 1988
PG Diploma in (IR & PM) – 1990
PG Diploma in HR – 2002.
02/07/1984 - Mazdoor, Gr.E
01/01/1988 - Machinery Attendant, Grade D
25/06/1993 - Welfare Officer Trainee
25/06/1994 - Welfare Officer, M7 Promotion
29/10/1997 - Suspension
18/11/1998 - Reinstated and assigned as Officer
Special duty.
27/06/2001 - Punished for indulging in act
unbecoming of a public servant
(withholding of annual increment)
three increments/and job
assignment only in Railway liason.
22/10/2003 – Punishment reviewed – one
increment withholding without
cumulative effect.
01/06/2004 – Personnel Officer, Grade M6 –
Promotion – to continue with
Railway Liason works.
25/06/2007 – Period of suspension from
29/10/1997 to 17/11/1998
treated as duty.
27/09/2008 – Officer in Charge – Kannur Sales
Office.
Total experience in MCL – 16 years in Managerial cadre
Date of retirement – 31/05/2020.”
4. In so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, the
qualification and experience noticed are the following:-
“1. Sri.R.Jayaprakash, Code No.1325
Asst.Manager (P&A), Grade M5B.Sc Zoology – 1975
MSW (1977) with specialisation of Personnel
Management Industrial relations and Labour WelfareWP(C) No.29531/2009
-3-09/09/2002 – Personnel Officer on
deputation
21/02/2004 – Personnel Officer, Grade M6
09/06/2005 – Asst. Manager (P&A),
Grade M5Total experience in MCL : 7 years
Prior to20
joining MCL :
i) years experience in Trivandrum Spinning
Mills and Kerala Tourism Development
Corporation (State PSUs) as Personnel
Officer / Deputy Manager (P&A)
ii) Personnel Officer – 28/04/1982 to
01/02/1992.
iii) Dy.Manager (P&A) – 02/02/1992 to
08/09/2002
iv) 2 years experience in Bhagavathy Textiles as
Labour Officer – 1980 to 1982.
Due date for retirement : 30/11/2012″
5. A reading of the experience noticed above itself shows
that the petitioner does not possess 10 years experience in
personnel and administration. If that be so, the petitioner
admittedly is an ineligible candidate, and what he is impugning is
the selection of the 3rd respondent, who evidently satisfies the
required length of experience prescribed for the post in question. If
that be the situation, I cannot find fault with the Company in having
rejected the candidature of the petitioner.
6. Other grievance of the petitioner is in relation to Ext.P15
WP(C) No.29531/2009
-4-
vacancy notification, in so far as it concerns the post of Assistant
Manager (Personnel & Administration). The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner satisfies the educational
qualifications and 5 years experience prescribed for the above post.
7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Company has
taken any decision on the applications received in pursuance to
Ext.P15. On the other hand, he apprehends that, his candidature is
likely to be rejected.
If that be so, at present, no decision prejudicial to the interest
of the petitioner has been taken by the Company. If that be so, his
grievance against Ext.P15 is purely anticipatory, and as at present,
he has no legally redressable grievance to seek its redressal in a
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg