Manjima Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126912
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-12-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
AppellantManjima
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice c.k.abdul rehim wednesday, the12h day of february201423rd magha, 1935 wp(c).no. 25247 of 2013 (e) ---------------------------- petitioner(s): -------------- manjima, aged29 manjima vihar, manjamankala, punalur kollam district. by advs.sri.s.nidheesh smt.a.n.anila respondent(s): -------------- 1. state of kerala represented by the secretary to higher education department secretariat, trivandrum - 695 001.2. the director of higher secondary directorate, trivandrum - 695 001.3. the corporate manager pathanapuram taluk samajam corporate management school b.h.s.s building, valakodu, punalur.4. the principal boys higher secondary school, punalur.5. beena.g neduveli house, chemanthoor, punalur.6. rojin jacob puthen veedu, vettithitta.p.o., mukkadavu punalur.7. suresh kumar.k.b kizhivila padijattethil, agasthyacodu, punalur. *addl.8th respondent impleaded addl.8. jyothy.p.g., aged40years, s/o.p.parameswaran pillai, inchathadathil house, aikarakonam, punalur, kollam district. *addl.r8 impleaded as per order in i.a. no.1869/2014 dated1202.2014 r1 & r2 by government pleader smt.lowsy.a r3 & r4 by adv. sri.manoj ramaswamy r5-r7,raddl.r8 by adv. sri.s.mohammed al rafi this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on1202-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 25247 of 2013 (e) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ----------------------- p1- true copy of the news paper publication dated18.2013. p2- true copy of the interview card dated248.2013. p3- true copy of the notice. p4- true copy of the interview result of political science. p5- true copy of the interview result and mark sheet of geography. p6- true copy of the interview result and mark sheet of economics. p7- true copy of the interview result and mark sheet of malayalam. p8- true copy of the judgment in w.p[c] 17263/10 dated246.2010. p9- true copy of the order in i.a.1138/13 in o.s.93/07 dated129.2013. p10- true copy of the order in i.a. 1439/13 in o.s.93/07 dated129.2013. p11- true copy of the petition of the petitioner dated279.2013. respondent(s)' exhibits ----------------------- ext.r3(a) true copy of the g.o.no.3404/2013/g.edn. dated198.2013 ext.r2(a) copy of report ext.r3(a) copy of the list of schools subject-wise posts sanctioned as per g.o.(ms)no.211/2013/g.edn dated1507.2013 (relevant portion) ext.r3(b) copy of the order g.o.(rt) no.3404/2013/g.edn dated1908.2013 ext.r3(c) copy of the judgment dated2406.2010 in wp(c) no. 17263 of2010of the hon'ble high court of kerala ext.r3(d) copy of the i.a. no.1461 of2013in o.s.no.93 of2007dated0508.2013 of the hon'ble munsiffs court, punalur /true copy/ p. a. to judge pn c.k. abdul rehim, j.------------------------------------ w.p.(c). no. 25247 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- dated this the 12th day of february, 2014 judgment the petitioner is seeking to quash the selection and appointment conducted on the basis of ext.p1 notification by the 3rd respondent management. ext.p1 notification was issued for appointment of teachers in the 4th respondent school in the subject of, malayalam, political science, geography and economics. the petitioner is a candidate applied on the basis of ext.p1. he was invited for an interview scheduled on 01.09.2013. according to the petitioner, the interview could not be conducted due to agitations of public in the locality, based on an allegation that the appointment being made illegally. despite the fact that no interview was conducted on 01.09.2013, ext.p4 to p7 evaluation certificates were issued to the candidates selected for appointment, the respondents 5 to 8, as if the interview was conducted and they were selected. it is alleged that bogus records were created with respect to the selection process which had w.p.(c). no. 25247 of 2013 -2- totally vitiated the selection. it is further contended that the governing body of the 3rd respondent management which had issued the notification and conducted the interview, was not in power at that time for making the appointment. eventhough the petitioner submitted a detailed complaint before the 2nd respondent, no action was taken, and hence this writ petition is filed.2. contentions in this writ petition was resisted by respondents 3 and 4 stating that the interview was conducted by a selection board which consisted of government nominee and the selection was made on the basis of the interview conducted. the allegation regarding expiry of the term of the governing body of the 3rd respondent is also disputed.3. in a statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that, an enquiry was conducted by the deputy director with respect to the selection and the interview conducted on 01.09.2013 and it was revealed that the allegations are true. ext.r2(a) is the report of enquiry in which it is categorically stated w.p.(c). no. 25247 of 2013 -3- that no interview was conducted on 01.09.2013. therefore the regional deputy director had recommended for cancellation of the selection and to permit appointment only after conducting a proper selection process on the basis of a fresh notification. learned government pleader had produced the copy of a letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the regional deputy director, dated 10.02.2014 directing to take necessary steps to cancel the interview conducted on 01.09.2013 and to give direction to the manager of the school to conduct a fresh interview by giving notice to all the candidates applied. it was also instructed to issue direction to the manager to ensure that the government nominee who attended the earlier interview should not be invited for the next interview.4. in view of the situation prevailing as above, the issue involved in this writ petition no more survives for consideration. needless to observe that, the 3rd respondent will be at liberty to issue fresh notification for the interview and to conduct selection in accordance with w.p.(c). no. 25247 of 2013 -4- the direction issued by the 2nd respondent and by the educational authorities concerned. needless to observe that respondents 5 to 8 will be at liberty to participate in the fresh interview which will be conducted. sd/- c.k. abdul rehim, judge /true copy/ p. a. to judge pn
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE12H DAY OF FEBRUARY201423RD MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 25247 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- MANJIMA, AGED29 MANJIMA VIHAR, MANJAMANKALA, PUNALUR KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.S.NIDHEESH SMT.A.N.ANILA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY DIRECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL B.H.S.S BUILDING, VALAKODU, PUNALUR.

4. THE PRINCIPAL BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUNALUR.

5. BEENA.G NEDUVELI HOUSE, CHEMANTHOOR, PUNALUR.

6. ROJIN JACOB PUTHEN VEEDU, VETTITHITTA.P.O., MUKKADAVU PUNALUR.

7. SURESH KUMAR.K.B KIZHIVILA PADIJATTETHIL, AGASTHYACODU, PUNALUR. *ADDL.8TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED ADDL.8. JYOTHY.P.G., AGED40YEARS, S/O.P.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, INCHATHADATHIL HOUSE, AIKARAKONAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER

IN I.A. NO.1869/2014 DATED1202.2014 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY.A R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY R5-R7,RADDL.R8 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1202-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25247 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER PUBLICATION DATED18.2013. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED248.2013. P3- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE. P4- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW RESULT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. P5- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW RESULT AND MARK SHEET OF GEOGRAPHY. P6- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW RESULT AND MARK SHEET OF ECONOMICS. P7- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW RESULT AND MARK SHEET OF MALAYALAM. P8- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN W.P[C] 17263/10 DATED246.2010. P9- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

IN I.A.1138/13 IN O.S.93/07 DATED129.2013. P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

IN I.A. 1439/13 IN O.S.93/07 DATED129.2013. P11- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER DATED279.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.3404/2013/G.EDN. DATED198.2013 EXT.R2(A) COPY OF REPORT EXT.R3(A) COPY OF THE LIST OF SCHOOLS SUBJECT-WISE POSTS SANCTIONED AS PER G.O.(MS)NO.211/2013/G.EDN DATED1507.2013 (RELEVANT PORTION) EXT.R3(B) COPY OF THE ORDER

G.O.(RT) NO.3404/2013/G.EDN DATED1908.2013 EXT.R3(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED2406.2010 IN WP(C) NO. 17263 OF2010OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.R3(D) COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1461 OF2013IN O.S.NO.93 OF2007DATED0508.2013 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, PUNALUR /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE Pn C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

------------------------------------ W.P.(C). No. 25247 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is seeking to quash the selection and appointment conducted on the basis of Ext.P1 notification by the 3rd respondent Management. Ext.P1 notification was issued for appointment of Teachers in the 4th respondent School in the subject of, Malayalam, Political Science, Geography and Economics. The petitioner is a candidate applied on the basis of Ext.P1. He was invited for an interview scheduled on 01.09.2013. According to the petitioner, the interview could not be conducted due to agitations of public in the locality, based on an allegation that the appointment being made illegally. Despite the fact that no interview was conducted on 01.09.2013, Ext.P4 to P7 evaluation certificates were issued to the candidates selected for appointment, the respondents 5 to 8, as if the interview was conducted and they were selected. It is alleged that bogus records were created with respect to the selection process which had W.P.(C). No. 25247 of 2013 -2- totally vitiated the selection. It is further contended that the Governing Body of the 3rd respondent Management which had issued the notification and conducted the interview, was not in power at that time for making the appointment. Eventhough the petitioner submitted a detailed complaint before the 2nd respondent, no action was taken, and hence this writ petition is filed.

2. Contentions in this writ petition was resisted by respondents 3 and 4 stating that the interview was conducted by a Selection Board which consisted of Government Nominee and the selection was made on the basis of the interview conducted. The allegation regarding expiry of the term of the Governing Body of the 3rd respondent is also disputed.

3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director with respect to the selection and the interview conducted on 01.09.2013 and it was revealed that the allegations are true. Ext.R2(a) is the report of enquiry in which it is categorically stated W.P.(C). No. 25247 of 2013 -3- that no interview was conducted on 01.09.2013. Therefore the Regional Deputy Director had recommended for cancellation of the selection and to permit appointment only after conducting a proper selection process on the basis of a fresh notification. Learned Government Pleader had produced the copy of a letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the Regional Deputy Director, dated 10.02.2014 directing to take necessary steps to cancel the interview conducted on 01.09.2013 and to give direction to the Manager of the School to conduct a fresh interview by giving notice to all the candidates applied. It was also instructed to issue direction to the Manager to ensure that the Government Nominee who attended the earlier interview should not be invited for the next interview.

4. In view of the situation prevailing as above, the issue involved in this writ petition no more survives for consideration. Needless to observe that, the 3rd respondent will be at liberty to issue fresh notification for the interview and to conduct selection in accordance with W.P.(C). No. 25247 of 2013 -4- the direction issued by the 2nd respondent and by the educational authorities concerned. Needless to observe that respondents 5 to 8 will be at liberty to participate in the fresh interview which will be conducted. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /True copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn