Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.17335 OF 2012(N) PETITIONER: E.CHANDRASEKHARAN 66, PONNIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, PURASAWAKKAM, CHENNAI-7. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: 1 COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-682 016, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 2 THE SECRETRY, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. 3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682016. 4 RAMACHANDRAN V., VARIKAT HOUSE, VENOLI ROAD, KALLEPULLI, PALAKKAD-678 005. 5 V.S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, VADAKKUMPURAM, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD-678 546.
6 AJI, KOONANCHIRAYIL, KIZHAKKEKAR SOUTH, VALIYAPARAMBU P.O, KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-690566, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 13-26-2, APUROOPA ARCADE, OPP.JAGADMBA THEATRE, MAHARANIPETTA, VISAKHAPATANAM-530 022. 7 DINU M., M.K. HOUSE, PETTAKKAD, PAMPAMIPALLAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678 621, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, TC 25/360-2, RAMAKRISHNA BUILDING, OPP. TO MALAYALA MANORAMA, MANORAMA ROAD, THAMPANUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
8 HEMANT VAID, C-95, GURUDWARA STREET, JEEVAN PARK, PANKHA ROAD, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 1/16A, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. 9 SREEJESH V., C/O K.KRISHNA PILLAI, 19/566, KRISHNA, NEW COLONY, MANKAVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA- 678013. 10 SUBHASH G., MALAYAPOTHI HOUSE, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678 546, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, WEST PALLITHAMAM BUILDING,KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR ROAD, THRISSUR-686 020. 11 RADHEY SHYAM, 7/16, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110 001, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 19, SUREN TAGORE ROAD, BALLYGUNGE POST, GARIAHAT, KOLKATA-700 019. 12 SIVAKUMAR S., KOLLARA MADHAVA BHAVAN, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-688 536, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 1-A, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 13 SHAJAHAN M., BISMILLA HOUSE, NELLIPADAM, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678 508, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, EST PALLITHANAM BUILDING, KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR ROAD, THRISSUR-686 020. 14 SYAM BABU K.S., KALLASSERY, CHITHIRALAYAM, POONTHOPPU WARD, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-688 006, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, SHIBNAGAR COLLEGE ROAD, AGARTHALA, TRIPURA-799 004. 15 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATA BHAVAN, GPO COMPLEX, BLOCK A, INA, NEW DELHI-110 023. 16 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MS&ME), UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. PIN-110 001.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR - ASGI SMT. O.M SHALINA - SC SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.F.ANCY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23926/2012(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.23926 OF 2012 PETITIONERS: 1 JOSHI.V., KANNITTAYIL HOUSE, CMC 21, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688524. 2 ANIL KUMAR D., KIZHAKKECHELLAKKADU, KARIKKADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688527. 3 AJAYAKUMAR P.C., V.V.GRAMAM COLONY, KURUPPANKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: 1 COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682016, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 2 THE SECRETARY, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682016. 3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682016. 4 RAMACHANDRAN V., VARIKAT HOUSE, VENOLI ROAD, KALLEPULLI, PALAKKAD-678005. 5 V.S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, VADAKKUMPURAM, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD-678546. 6 AJI, KOONANCHIRAYIL, KIZHAKKEKARA SOUTH, VALIYAPARAMBU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA-690566, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 13-26-2, APUROOA ARCADE, OPP. JAGADAMBA THEATRE, MAHARANIPETTA, VISAKHAPATANAM-530022. 7 DINU M., M.K.HOUSE, PETTAKKAD, PAMPAMPALLAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678621, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, TC.25/360-2, RAMAKRISHNA BUILDING, OPP. TO MALAYALA MANORAMA, MANORAMA ROAD, THAMPANUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695001. 8 HEMANT VAID, C-95, GURUDWARA STREET, JEEVAN PARK, PANKHA ROAD, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 1/16A, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110002. 9 SREEJESH V., C/O.K.KRISHNA PILLAI, 19/566, 'KRISHNA', NEW COLONY, MANKAVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678013, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, NEAR STADIUM STAND, N.S.TOWER NO. 280-1 & 2, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678013. 10 SUBHASH G., MALAYAPOTHI HOUSE, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 678546, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, WEST PALLITHANAM BUILDING, KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR ROAD, THRISSUR-686020. 11 RADHEY SHYAM, 7/16, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 19, SUREN TAGORE ROAD, BALLYGUNGE POST, GARIAHAT, KOLKATA - 700019. 12 SIVAKUMAR S., KOLLARA MADHAVA BHAVAN, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA - 688536, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, 1-A, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 13 SHAJAHAN M., BISMILLA HOUSE, NELLIPADAM, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678508, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, WEST PALLTHANAM BUILDING, KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR ROAD, THRISSUR-686020. 14 SYAM BABU K.S., KALLASSERY, CHITHRALAYAM, POONTHOPPU WARD, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-688006, WORKING AT COIR BHAVAN, SHIBNAGAR COLLEGE ROAD, AGARTHALA, TRIPURA-799004. 15 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATA BHAVAN, GPO COMPLEX, BLOCK A, INA, NEW DELHI-110023. 16 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM NAD MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MS&ME), UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC SMT.F.ANCY SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).17335/2012(N), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Petitioners in these two cases - which have been heard together on account of the analogous factual circumstances and reliefs sought for - are stated to be Hamal-cum- Stitchers in the services of the Coir Board and they say that they had responded to a notification issued by the said Board for permanent appointment to such posts. They say that they had participated in the selection process conducted in February 2011 and that since they have performed very well, they were included high in the rank list, thus legitimately justifying the impression that they would be appointed.
2. The petitioners allege that, however,
they were later informed that said process was cancelled and that a re-test was conducted in June 2011 and assert that this was done only to ensure that some of the candidates who are close to the officials of the Board were selected. They then point out that respondents 7 and 9 in WP(C)No.17335/2012, are persons who were identified subsequently and appointed solely because of their affinity to the higher officials of the Board.
3. The petitioners, therefore, pray that
the rank list prepared by the Selection Committee, after the re-test - namely Ext.P7 in WP(C)No.23926/2012, which is same as Ext.P14 in WP(C)No.17335/2012 - be set aside and that they be directed to be appointed to the vacancies, based on their performance in the selection conducted in February 2011.
4. Sri.N.Reghuraj - learned counsel for
the petitioners in these two cases, supplemented the afore contentions by saying that the persons, who have now been found to be eligible and appointed, through the re-test conducted in June 2011, were, in fact, persons who have fared very badly in the first test conducted in February 2011 and that this is indubitable from Exts.P12, P12(a) marks sheets and P13, P13(a), P13(b) and P13(c) answer scripts, which have been produced along with WP(C)No.17335/2012. He submitted that, therefore, nepotism and favouritism are writ large in the selection proceedings; and thus reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for by his clients be granted.
5. In response, Smt.O.M.Shalina - the
learned Standing Counsel for the Coir Board, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, explaining why the first test conducted in February 2011 had been cancelled, leading to a re-test in June 2011. She submitted that this is available in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the counter affidavit and submitted that a re-test was mandated only because the Committee, which conducted the first test in February 2011, had acted beyond their jurisdiction in having held a written test in English, which language was not familiar to most of the candidates, who had appeared on an All India basis. She submitted that a second Committee was, thereafter, constituted and that they had then conducted a re-test in June 2011, which was widely published and notified. She further submitted that the petitioners had, in fact, participated in the re-test and therefore, that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. She, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
6. Smt.Amritha Vidhyadharan and
Sri.S.Sujin, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in these cases, submitted that the allegations of the petitioners are wholly without basis and are unsubstantiated, particularly that respondents 7 and 9 in WP(C)No.17335/2012 have been selected only on account of their affinity to the senior officials of the Board. They submitted that these allegations are per se malafide and prayed that these Writ Petitions be dismissed.
7. When I consider the afore submissions,
one aspect that immediately engages my attention is that these Writ Petitions have been pending before this Court for the last more than eight years without any interim orders having been secured by the petitioners. Obviously, therefore, the matter has now become stale, especially because the party respondents were appointed and have been continuing in service for all these time.
8. That apart, the sole allegation of the
petitioners impelled in these Writ Petitions is that the first test conducted in February 2011 had been cancelled illegally, since they were ranked high up in the list; and that a re-test was held in June 2011, solely to enable the party respondents to be appointed, they being closely associated with the officials of the 1st respondent.
9. However, when I go through the
averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, particularly those contained in paragraphs 5 and 7, their position is that a re-test was necessitated because the first process made by the Selection Committee was bad, they having conducted a written test instead of a practical test and that too in English. To enable a full reading, I deem it apposite to extract the afore paragraphs of the counter affidavit below:
5. The committee was entrusted with the
work of conduct of the practical test only since the qualifiction for the post is a 'pass in middle school standard and two years' experience in stitching and work connected with the sale of coir and coir goods'. But the committee had conducted the practical test which included a written test for the post during the period from 9th to 11th February, 2011 at National Coir Training & Design
Centre, Kalavoor, Alappuzha. It was observed that by conducting written test to candidates, who hailed from different states of the country with different mother tongues etc, the committee members had deviated from the approved procedures, which led to cancellation of the entire selection process held at national level. Some of the candidates had complained orally to the Chairman, Coir Board, also on the methodology of the practical test, since the poor candidates had come from different parts of the country. This matter was taken seriously and an explanation was called for from the committee members. In the light of the oral complaints of some of the candidates, a re-test was conducted on 8th and 9th June 2011, by a fresh committee consisting of five Officers under the overall supervision of Shri. M.Kumaraswamy Pillai, Director (Marketing) for all the candidates. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that there was nothing discriminatory or unusual in the entire selection process for recruitment of Hamal-Cum-Stitchers. Hence the contentions of the petitioner in the above Writ Petition contrary to the above are utter false hood and hence denied.
7. Regarding the contentions in
paragraph numbers 2 and 3 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that as per the instructions given to the duly constituted selection Committee, the committee was to conduct the practical test alone whereas, they had conducted a written test which was against the direction given by the Board to the committee members, as the qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rule for selection to the post was only 'a pass in middle
school standard and two years experience in stitching and work connected with the sale of coir and coir goods' and the selection was made on an all India basis candidates from Odisha, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, New Delhi attended the practical test. The committee entrusted with the work of conducting practical test made the candidates to write down the names of the coir products on an officially sealed white paper with their roll number and signature. The candidates who are hailing from various states were unable to write down the names of the identified coir products in English and it is pertinent to bring to the notice that the committee members were unable to value the answer sheet as the candidates have written answers in their local language i.e., Telungu, Odia, Tamil, Hindi, etc. So they were forced to write in English and this has created problems for the candidates leading to loss of mark which affected the scope of the candidates for securing expected marks for gaining an opportunity for employment.
10. It is, therefore, obvious that the
official respondents have been able to cogently explain why a re-test was necessitated and I find some force in it because, if a written test had been conducted in English, then certainly, many of the candidates, particularly from other parts of India, would have been able to answer it and this perhaps explains the fact that they were placed very low in the rank list prepared after the first test. Therefore, merely because the petitioners may have secured higher ranks in the selection process conducted by the first Selection Committee and the party respondents may have been ranked lower than them, it does not conclusively establish that the process was jettisoned, only so as to favour the latter and to cause prejudice to the petitioners.
11. In any event, I find justification in
the explanation offered by the 1st respondent, that the selection conducted by the first committee in February 2011 was not as per the stipulated guidelines, since what was entrusted with them to do was to conduct a practical test and not a written test.
12. That apart, since it is admitted that
the petitioners had participated in the retest without demur, they cannot seek the same to be cancelled - as has been prayed for in these cases - solely because they found themselves lower in rank pursuant thereto. Consequently, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RR JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17335/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18-01-2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. CB/ADM/2010/4/6 DATED 16-05-2011 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11-06-2011.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BEARING NO. CB/MRS/RTI/10/12/1 VOL-III(A) DATED 11-07-2011.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01-08-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07-09-2011 GIVEN BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA DATED 15-11-2011 EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE DATED 15-11-2011 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND AND 16TH RESPONDENT DATED 14-12-2011
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 31-01-2012 IN THE 2ND AND 16TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07-03-2012
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMUNICATED DATED 09-03-2012 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF MARKS AWARDED TO THE CANDIDATED IN THE PRACTICAL TEST HELD ON 9TH AND 10TH FEBUARY, 2011 EXHIBIT P12(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF MARKS AWARDED TO THE CANDIDATED IN THE INTERVIEW HELD ON 11TH FEBRUARY,
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LIST OF THE CANDIDATES FOR SELECTED TO THE POST OF HAMAL CUM STITCHER UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTION HELD IN JUNE, 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23926/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CB/ADM/2008/4/7/DTD. 08.07.2010. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18.01.2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.08.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE E.CHANDRASEKHARAN. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BEARING NO.CB/MRS/RTI/10/12/1 VOL.III(B) DATED 07.09.2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF MARKS AWARDED IN THE PRACTICAL TEST HELD ON 11TH FEBRUARY, 2011. EXHIBIT P5A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OF THE STATEMENTS OF MARKS AWARDED IN THE INTERVIEW HELD ON 11TH FEBRUARY, 2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6C TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LIST OF THE
CANDIDATES FOR SELECTED TO THE POST OF HAMAL CUM STITCHER UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTION HELD IN JUNE, 2011. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 03.12.2011. EXHIBIT P8A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 22.12.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.01.2011 EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 03.08.2010