Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented on 6 August, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24752 of 2010(T)
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SON OF RAVEENDRAN,
... Petitioner
2. PRADEEP.R, SON OF RAGHAVAN,
3. D.SIVAPRASAD, SON OF DIMAR SINGH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
5. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.24752 of 2010 (T)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, a vacancy notification issued by the respondent Company inviting applications for the post of Worker.
2. According to the petitioners, prescriptions in Ext.P4 notification are contrary to Exts.P1 & P3 Government Orders, and it is on that basis, the petitioners seek to challenge Ext.P4 notification. One of the main contentions raised by the petitioners is regarding the inclusion of Ex-Apprentices among the four categories eligible to apply in terms of Ext.P4 notification. It is contended that Ex- Apprentices are not included as an eligible category in Exts.P1 & P3 Government Orders and therefore, the respondent Company could not have included Ex-Apprentices also among the eligible categories.
3. First of all, Exts.P1 & P3 Government Orders only provide for certain preferences to persons evicted from the project site, persons whose land has been acquired for project site and persons belonging to the surrounding Panchayats to the project, who have WP(C) No.24752/2010 -2- been working at the project site of the Company. A reading of Ext.P1 order itself show that preference will be given provided, other things being equal. This obviously means that if the applicants belonging to the aforesaid three categories come out equal to the applicants belonging to other categories, the categories of persons mentioned in Exts.P1 & P3 orders will be preferred over the other categories. Necessarily therefore, Exts.P1 & P3 do not rule out the freedom of the Company to include other categories also as eligible category, as and when notification is issued and selection is held. Therefore, if the respondent Company in its wisdom has decided to include Ex- Apprentices of the Company also as an eligible category, in my view, neither Ext.P1 nor Ext.P3 will stand in its way.
4. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in Ext.P4, it is provided that a minimum attendance of 100 days is necessary and that in Ext.P3 Government Order, it is provided that those who have attained experience of 1 year or minimum attendance of 100 days will be eligible. It is stated in Ext.P4 notification that only those who are having minimum 100 days attendance are made eligible and therefore to that extent Ext.P4 notification is contrary to Exts.P1 & P3.
5. True as contended, in Ext.P3 Government Order it is WP(C) No.24752/2010 -3- provided that those who are having 1 year experience or having 100 days minimum attendance will be eligible. It is also true that in Ext.P4, those who are having 1 year experience is not seen included. However, in my understanding, by confining the eligibility to those who are having 100 days minimum attendance, the Company was making only a liberal provision to the advantage of the candidates, in as much as by this prescription the Company has made candidates having attendance of 100 days also eligible as against the one year prescribed in Ext.P3. This does not cause any prejudice to any one of the applicants. Therefore, this contention also does not call for interference.
Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that in Ext.P4 notification, persons belonging to surrounding Panchayats, who have been working at the project sites of the respondent Company are not made as an eligible category of applicants. However, going by the pleadings in the writ petition itself, by virtue of the exclusion of the said category, the petitioners did not suffer any prejudice and therefore, I am not persuaded to entertain the writ petition on that plea either.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg