Kerala High Court
Sam G. John vs Sri. R.Rajendran on 23 February, 2010
Bench: P.R.Raman, C.N.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1515 of 2007(B)
1. SAM G. JOHN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI. R.RAJENDRAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
4. SRI. R.RAJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. &
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.A. Nos. 1515 & 1001 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Raman, Ag. C. J.
The selection and appointment to the post of Deputy Director (IED), which is an administrative post based on the scheme sponsored by the Central Government, was proposed to be made for which notification was issued. Appellant and third respondent were among the 16 candidates who applied for and participated in the interview. Candidates were interviewed by a High Level Committee consisting of Secretary (General Education), Director of Public Instruction, Member, State Planning Board and a nominee of Director of Medical Education and eventually third respondent was selected. Challenging the selection and appointment of third respondent, appellant preferred W.P.C.No. 28658 of 2005. As a matter of fact, earlier to this Writ Petition, challenging the very same selection and appointment, another contestant filed W P C No. 24523 of 2005. That Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by considered 2 judgment. The learned single Judge found that the allegations are unfounded and there is no merit in the contentions raised warranting interference in the matter. Following the decision of this Court in TRESA V. FERNANDES v. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, (1997) 1 KLT (SN) 47, and the decisions of the Supreme Court in DALPAT ABASAHED SOLUNKE V. DR. B.S. MAHAJAN, AIR 1990 SC 434 AND D.V. BAKSHI V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1993 SC 2347, the learned single Judge held in that judgment that when selection is conducted by a High Power Expert Committee, there is hardly any reason for this Court to interfere unless the selection is vitiated by any mala fide or arbitrariness. When the appellant filed the subsequent Writ Petition, another learned single Judge of this Court considered the matter and concurred with the view expressed in the earlier judgment in WPC 24523 of 2005. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed. Two Writ Appeals are filed by the appellant, one against the judgment in WPC 28658 of 2005 and the other against the judgment in WPC 24523 of 2005 after obtaining leave of this Court. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as State Government Pleader.
3
2. We may at the outset state that third respondent who was appointed to the post was a blind person. According to counsel appearing for the appellant, selection is vitiated for the reason that only the persons who possess both essential and desirable qualifications could apply and since the third respondent does not have desirable qualification, he is ineligible to apply. We find no force in this contention because when essential and desirable qualifications are separately prescribed in the notification, the purpose is evident that anybody who possesses essential qualification could apply, and if anyone possesses desirable qualification, he may have edge over others. Therefore to say that even to apply, a person should possess both essential and desirable qualifications, will make no difference between the two.
3. It was nextly contended that experience possessed by the appellant was not duly considered. In this regard, according to him, no marks was awarded for his experience as against 30 marks for experience. We find that no specific contention was raised in the Writ Petition. On the other hand, the contentions raised by the appellant in the Writ Petition are against the disqualification of the third respondent 4 to hold the post. At any rate this is not a point raised in the Writ Petition. In the absence of any such specific contention being raised before the learned single Judge, if at all the remedy is to file Review Petition. That has not been done.
4. It was then argued that third respondent is totally blind and he himself has sought for assistance of a Personal Assistant which is evident from Ext.P9 letter. This does not pre-suppose the fact that he suffered from any disqualification at the time of interview. The fact that he sought for assistance of a Personal Assistant does not mean that he is in any way disqualified for the post as advertised. All the contentions urged have been considered by the learned single Judge and we do not find any ground to interfere with the same in an intra- Court appeal. Accordingly both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
(P.R. RAMAN) Ag. Chief Justice (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.
kk 5