Kerala High Court
Raj Kumar vs Cochin Shipyard Limited on 4 February, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:19215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 15TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 382 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2021 IN WP(C) NO.26750 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAJ KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. PREM SINGH, LALGARHI, BITHANA POST, ALIIGARH
DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH PIN 202 002, NOW RESIDING AT
ROAD NO. 10E5/2, NEWTOWN, CHHOTODIGARHI, WEST BURDWAN
DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL PIN - 713 326.
BY ADVS.
T.V.GEORGE
SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PERUMANOOR P.O, KERALA,
COCHIN, PIN - 682 015.
2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND TRG)
COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, COCHIN
SHIPYARD PREMISES, PERUMANOOR P.O, COCHIN - 682 015.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.382/2021
2
2025:KER:19215
JUDGMENT
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.02.2021 in WP(C) No.26750/2020, the appellant/petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. As per the impugned judgment, the following claim of the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
"(i) call for the entire records relating to the above case,
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash Ext.P13 rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent for selection to the post of Asst Engineer (Structural);
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 and 2 to include the petitioner's name in the select list and to appoint him to the post of Asst. Engineer (Structural) under the respondents considering Ext.P3 and P14 service certificates also finding that he is fully qualified candidate for the post;
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents not to fill up the vacant post of Asst. Engineer (Structural) reserved for OBC candidates by appointing any other candidate other than petitioner who is a fully qualified candidate.
(v) Grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem to fit, proper and necessary to grant in the interests of justice."W.A.382/2021 3
2025:KER:19215
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows:
The petitioner, Raj Kumar, submitted Ext.P6 application for the Post of Assistant Engineer (Structural) in response to Ext.P5 notification.
The qualifications provided for the said posts include seven years experience in structural fitting works, preferably in a Shipyard/Dockyard or heavy engineering company or Government establishment, out of which, two years should be in a supervisory grade. The petitioner, in support of his contention, has submitted Ext.P3 service certificate from "Saksham Die Making and Die Casting Udyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd.", to show his supervisory experience. In his application, he stated that, he had worked as Supervisor in the establishment from 01.02.2012 to 31.10.2013, by an inadvertent mistake, his application was rejected for the reason that he had less than two years of experience in supervisory cadre.
3. The stand of the respondents/Cochin Shipyard before the Tribunal and before us was that the appellant had only one year and eight months experience in the supervisory capacity.
4. The learned Single Judge, noticing the rival contentions held that the rejection of the appellant's application cannot be said to be illegal.
W.A.382/20214
2025:KER:19215
5. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable.
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
8. Adv.T.V.George, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the appellant was in fact appointed as Supervisor and he had joined in the service on 01.08.2011 itself as evident from Exts.P3, P14 and P15. However, his designation was shown as Diploma trainee. After the probation period, his service as Supervisor was regularized from 01.08.2011 and this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge.
9. We have gone through Exts.P3 and P14 service certificates issued by Saksham Die Making and Die Casting Udyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The certificates aforementioned would indicate that the appellant/petitioner joined in the service as Diploma trainee on 01.08.2011 and he left the service on 31.10.2013, Ext.P3 was issued on 31.10.2013. However, Ext.P14 certificate issued on 23.11.2020 would state that he W.A.382/2021 5 2025:KER:19215 joined the company on 01.08.2011 as Supervisor. Exts.P3 and P14 certificates are extracted hereunder: W.A.382/2021 6
2025:KER:19215 W.A.382/2021 7 2025:KER:19215
10. On perusal of Exts.P3 and P14, it could be seen that the appellant does not possess the required experience of two years in supervisory capacity as he joined as a Diploma Trainee. Moreover, Exts.P3 and P14 are contrary and mutually destructive. The learned Single Judge, noticing the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner does not possess the required experience as per notification. We do not find any illegality, perversity, much less fallacy in the impugned judgment. No good ground for interference is made out.
Writ Appeal fails and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE Sbna/