IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 642 of 2009(B)
1. SAJITH.P.D., POLLAYIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. KITCO PLACEMENT PARK,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.N.RAJANI
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.AHAMED,SC FOR KTDC LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd February,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was an applicant to the post of Waiter
which was notified by the 1st respondent as per Exhibit-
P2. The written test was conducted on 2.8.2008. A short
list of 114 candidates were published thereafter. The
interview has also been conducted.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court mainly
raising two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the
2nd respondent Organisation which has conducted the
written test, as an agency appointed by the 1st
respondent, was interested in various candidates. It is
pointed out that they have been offering courses in Hotel
Management and is an assessing body for NCVT
certification. Therefore, the said agency ought not have
been entrusted with the task of conducting the selection
process. It is also contended that the said agency alone
is entrusted with the task of conducting the interview
W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009
2
also.
3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a detailed
counter affidavit has been filed. It is pointed out that as
per the provisions of the Service Rules of the Corporation,
prescribing method of recruitment, the 1st respondent
Corporation had notified 15 vacancies of Waiters on
regular basis to the Divisional Employment Exchange,
Thiruvananthapuram. Exhibit R1(c) is the said notification.
The vacancies were also notified in leading dailies like
Mathrubhumi and Indian Express dated 20.2.2008, which
is evidenced by Exhibit -R1 (d). The assignment for
conducting a written test for 484 applicants who were
possessing required qualifications as per the notification
was entrusted to the 2nd respondent, which is an HR
consultancy Division of KITCO established by Industrial
Development Bank of India and Government of Kerala.
First respondent wanted to ensure transparency in the
conduct of written test. 315 candidates appeared for the
written test and 169 candidates were absent.
W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009
3
4. The interview has been conducted between
8.1.2009 and 20.1.2009. The same was conducted by an
Interview Board constituted by the Board of Directors as
per Resolution No.5413 taken in the meeting held on
29.11.2008. The interview Board consisted of Chairman,
KTDC, Managing Director KTDC and three other Board
Members as provided in the service rules of the
Corporation. As per Exhibit R1 (e), the Managing
Director was also authorised to co-opt a subject expert in
the relevant field and the Secretary and Finance
Controller to assist the committee. Details regarding the
allotment of marks in the written test are stated in
paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit.
5. In the light of the above position reflected in the
counter affidavit, the contention raised by the petitioner
that the 2nd respondent is the sole agency appointed by the
1st respondent to conduct the written test and interview
cannot be accepted. Therefore, the allegations of malafides
or irregularities in the matter of the selection process
falls to the ground. It is clear from the averments in the
W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009
4
counter affidavit that to maintain transparency and to
ensure a proper selection, the 1st respondent has taken
various steps and the agency that is appointed is a
Governmental agency and they have got required expertise
in the matter of conducting written test also. Therefore,
this Court at this stage cannot interfere with the selection
process as no vitiating factors have been established in
support of the averments in the writ petition. The writ
petition is dismissed.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009
5
W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009
6