Kerala High Court
Navas P vs The State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2022
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
NAVAS P.
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.ABDU RAHMAN, PUTHIYOTH HOUSE, VAZHAYUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI. K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 033.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, UP-HILL,
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505.
4 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.
5 THE MEDICAL OFFICER
FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
673 640.
6 VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673 640.
7 THE PRESIDENT
VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673 640.
BY ADVS. SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL, STANDING COUNSEL FOR
PANCHAYATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022 The petitioner, a qualified medical graduate, had applied for appointment to the post of Doctor in the Vazhakkad Health Centre, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 25.10.2021. The interview for appointment to the notified post was conducted on 02.11.2021. According to the petitioner he has secured the first position, as is discernible from Ext.P2 information received under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of the Panchayath to appoint him and attempt to conduct fresh interview for the post of Doctor at Vazhakkad Health Centre.
2. The Panchayath's stand, as reflected from their counter affidavit, is that the Committee decided not to proceed with the process of appointment based on the interview conducted on 02.11.2021, since the result of that interview had leaked, before the rank list was placed for consideration of the Panchayath WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021 3 Committee. The Committee therefore decided to conduct a fresh interview as evidenced by Ext.R6(b).
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contented that the Panchayath is adopting surreptitious methods for denying appointment to the petitioner, so as to appoint a person of their choice. To that end, a fake story that the marks of the interview was leaked before it was placed in the Panchayath Committee is put forth. It is contented that, merit being the primary consideration for public appointment, the Panchayath is bound to appoint the petitioner, he having secured the maximum marks in the interview.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath submitted that, securing of maximum marks in the interview, by itself, will not vest the petitioner with any legal right to claim appointment. It is for the Panchayath to decide as to the person most suited for the notified post, based on the marks and other relevant factors. The marks of the interview having leaked before the Committee taking its decision, the sanctity of the whole process was lost. WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021 4
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that interview was conducted and rank list prepared following due procedure.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find substantial merit in the contention that having conducted interview following due procedure, the mere fact that the marks of the interview was made available in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, should not be to the prejudice of the person, who secured the maximum marks. Even if the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath that the list will be finalised only after taking into account other relevant factors also is accepted, there is no justification for not placing the list for such consideration before the Panchayath Committee. If the whole process of selection is to be set aside on the basis that the marks were divulged before the list reaching the Committee, in future also such subterfuge can be used to scuttle the process of appointment.
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021 5 The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the Panchayath Committee to finalise the process of appointment pursuant to Ext.P1, based on the marks secured by the candidates and other relevant factors, if any, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken in the manner directed above, the interim order granted on 15.11.2021 shall continue to be in force.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/24-2 WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25276/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/10/2021.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY ONE OF THE WARD MEMBERS AS PER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 6/11/2021 FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER VAZHAKKAD COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/11/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/11/2021.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(a) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECISION NO.12/4 DATED 10.11.2021 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(b) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF DECISION NO.12/5 DATED 10.11.2021 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE