Kerala High Court
Satheesh Kumar P.V vs Union Of India on 11 November, 2019
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L)
PETITIONER:
SATHEESH KUMAR P.V.
EX-ARMY HAVILDAR NO. 14914249 K,
SAROJALAYAM HOUSE, MANAKKAMPAD VILLAGE,
KINAVALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD DIST, KERALA - 678 615.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN
SRI.JOHN T.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE-SOUTH, NO.3,
HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600006.
4 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
R1-2 BY SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE, SC, FCI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is a partially disabled Ex-Serviceman had appeared for the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade III in the Food Corporation of India. In the application he had stated his disability as deaf (D). In fact he was partially deaf coming under the category of 'PD'. After the selection process was over petitioner was included in Ext.P7 select list at 596 at Serial No.17 among PWD. But when appointment was not seen granted to him though there were 18 vacancies earmarked for physically disabled candidates petitioner made enquiries and it was understood that a mistake occurred in the application with respect to the disability. He thereafter approached this Court, pointing out his entitlement to be considered as 'partially deaf'. By Ext.P11 judgment, the W.P.(C) No.20063 of 2017 was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider his representation taking into consideration of disability certificates produced by him and if necessary, after subjecting him to examination by a Disability Board. Even though respondents found that petitioner was partially deaf, in Ext.P12 order it was found that he got lesser marks than the last candidate selected under the partially deaf category. His name was thereupon deleted from the list.
2. Thereafter, petitioner has filed this writ petition pointing out WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L) 3 that he had claimed appointment in the Ex-Servicemen category also. He also stated that as against 80 vacancies reserved for physically disabled candidates only 47 appointments were made. In this writ petition he has sought for a direction to the respondent to consider his candidature against the quota reserved for Ex-Servicemen. On the basis of information collected under the Right to Information Act, he pointed out that he has got 50 marks out of 120.
3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner was included in the rank list under the 'deaf' category on the basis of entries in the application submitted by him. It is stated that the written test was conducted by a recruiting agency and the recruiting agency had declared result on 16.02.2016. On examination of the Medical Certificate issued to the petitioner it was found that he did not belong to the category of deaf as claimed by him. On intimation to the recruitment agency, recruitment agency revised the list accordingly, which was published on 04.07.2016. Therefore, his case was considered in the Partially Deaf category; but the last candidate who got appointment in the PWD category scored 54 marks whereas petitioner got only 50 marks. It is also stated that he got less marks than the minimum cut off marks for Ex Servicemen category also and it was the reason why he was not called under that category. WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L) 4
4. Learned Standing Counsel on further instructions from the respondents pointed out that as against 80 vacancies earmarked for Ex- Servicemen, the recruiting agency had published a list of 240 candidates and the last candidate (240th) was having 55 marks. It is stated that even after issuing orders of appointment to all the 240 candidates only 47 candidates joined duty.
5. It is stated that the rank list expired on 17.11.2017 and thereafter proceedings for fresh selection were already initiated and that the preliminary examination on the basis of that is already over. It is also pointed out that records relating to selection are with the recruiting agency. It is pointed out that all these vacancies have been carried forward and are included in the fresh notification, for which the preliminary examination is over.
6. On consideration of the contentions on both sides, though it is seen that out of the 80 vacancies notified for Ex-Servicemen only 47 are filled up, those vacancies were filled up from a list of 240 candidates who got marks 55 and above.
7. Just because petitioner approached this Court, no direction can be issued for his appointment overlooking those who secured marks above 50 and below 55. The respondents have stated that the details of marks and list of candidates are available only with the recruitment WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L) 5 agency.
8. Now that fresh notification is invited notifying these 33 carried forward vacancies also in the quota for Ex-Servicemen, it would be appropriate to direct preparation of a fresh list out of the candidates who appeared in the previous selection, especially when the rank list has also expired.
In the above circumstances, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA SCS JUDGE WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DISCHARGE BOOK NO. 04/2014 DATED 27.06.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE UN CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.07.2006.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.06.2014.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION REGISTRATION NO. 29260501430 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 07.03.2015.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ROLL NO.
2911056008423 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 02.08.2015.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT VERIFICATION LETTER FOR ROLL NO. 2911056008423 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.11.2015.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SOUTH ZONE SELECT LIST FOR ADVT.NO.
3/2015-FCI CATEGORY-III DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE MINISTER DATED 18.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MOCA, F&PD/2017 NOTE NO. 23 DATED 24.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO. 20063/2017.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
RPI/30(13)/2017 DATED 09.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
23.11.2017.
WP(C).No.13515 OF 2018(L)
7
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
RPI/32(4)/RTI/2018 DATED 11.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) NO.
220/2015 DATED 06.07.2015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT VERIFICATION LIST OF PWD/EXSM EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MARK DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER IN THE FIRST SELECTION RESULT PUBLISHED ON 16.02.2016 EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MARK DETAILS IN WAIT LIST IN RESPECT OF SHRI.NAGHUL MEERA SHEIK IN PWD CATEGORY & SHRI.MOHAMMAD SHOUKATULLA IN EXSM CATEGORY IN THE REVISED WAIT LIST PUBLISHED ON 04.07.2016 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE