Kerala High Court
Ajayan T vs Kerala Minerals And Metals Ltd on 8 August, 2025
WA NO. 415/2025 1
2025:KER:59409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 415 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.17161 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AJAYAN T,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT NAMBAKULAM, KALARI,
PANMANA, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON
SHRI.ABIN JACOB MATHEW
SMT.DEEBU R.
SHRI.SANJITH JOHNSON
SHRI.ARUN JOHNY
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7:
1 KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SHANKARAMANKALAM, CHAVARA P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
2 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD,
SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
WA NO. 415/2025 2
2025:KER:59409
KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD, SANKARAMANGALAM,
CHAVARA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE DIRECTOR
CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT,
THYKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
6 SRIKUMAR R.,
KATTIPUZHA VEEDU, KOYYIVILA P.O,
THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691590
7 SAYUSH B,
MANJU BHAVANAM, ERAVICHIRA WEST,
SOORANADU SOUTH, PATARAM P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690522
BY ADVS.
SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, R1 TO R3
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, THE COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 415/2025 3
2025:KER:59409
JUDGMENT
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17161 of 2018. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C). Three other W.P. (C)s were also disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment.
2. Appellant had in the W.P.(C) challenged Ext.P4 select list and waiting list drawn for selection to the post of Junior Khalasi in the 1st respondent, the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., which is a public sector undertaking. He had also sought a direction that the selection and preparations of the rank list shall be conducted only following Ext.P3 G.O. issued by the 4th respondent.
3. Appellant had applied to the post of Junior Khalasi in the 1st respondent Company. He alleges that his application was not properly considered, and the respondent, vide Ext.P4, prepared a select list without including his name. Alleging non-compliance with Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government as well as failure to comply with the selection guidelines prescribed by the 4 th respondent in Ext.P3, the W.P.(C) was filed seeking the following WA NO. 415/2025 4 2025:KER:59409 prayers :
"a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction calling for the records leading to the preparation of Ext.P4 select list and waiting list of Junior Khalasi under the 1 st respondent and to quash the same ;
b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, compelling and commanding the respondents to conduct selection to the various posts of skilled workmen in the 1st respondent Company following Ext.P3 Government Order for the purpose of selection and preparation of rank lists ;
c) issue such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case."
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the W.P.(C) along with other connected W.P.(C)s, holding that the directive in clause No.7 of Ext.P9 was only directory in nature. It was held that though clause No.7 visualises the publication of the result on the website of the 1st respondent on the very same date of the conclusion of the interview, since there was a large number of applicants, even as seen from the final list, it was impractical to publish the result on the very same date. Hence WA NO. 415/2025 5 2025:KER:59409 Clause 7 could only be considered as directory. As regards the allegation that the persons appearing in Ext.P10 have not attained the minimum cut-off mark i.e., aggregate 40% fixed by Ext.P9, the learned Single Judge taking note of the statement in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant along with Ext.P12 tabulated statement of marks held that the same would reveal that the marks have been arrived at by taking into account the marks obtained in the written test/skill test/interview and ultimately only those who attained more than 40% aggregate marks is included in Ext.P10. Thus, it was concluded that the challenge against Ext.P10 based on clause No.13 was not sustainable.
5. Heard Sri.Johnson Gomez, Advocate, for the appellant, Smt.Latha Anand, Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for the 4 th respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge that Ext.P3 is not mandatory and only directory is not legally sustainable insofar as the intent of Ext.P3 was to make a transparency in the selection process. It is contended that the purported explanation for the delay in publishing results from the website on the very same day has led to the WA NO. 415/2025 6 2025:KER:59409 creation of reasonable doubt in the minds of the candidates regarding the transparency of the process and that such appointments made without publishing the rank list, lacks transparency. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others in Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013 and connected matters dated 07.11.2024, and it is contended that if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list. It is contended that in the present case, it is apparent from the issuance of subsequent notification that there were 8 vacancies. However, candidates from the existing rank list were arbitrarily denied appointment by calling for another selection. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down in Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others [(1981) 1 SCC 722] as well as Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board [1993 (1) KLT 740].
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as well as the learned Government Pleader, made submissions defending the findings of the learned Single Judge and contended that no reasons have been made out to interfere with the same.
8. We have heard both sides in detail. The principal WA NO. 415/2025 7 2025:KER:59409 contention put forth by the appellant is that the 5 th respondent, who was the testing authority, had flouted the mandates of Ext.P3 G.O. while conducting the appointment process. Ext.P3 had indeed mandated the publishing of results on the website on the same day. The same was however published only after a delay of 42 days, and this it is stated had led to reasonable doubt in the minds of the candidates regarding the transparency of the process. The delay was allegedly intentional so as to favour non-meritorious candidates and to manipulate marks provided by the selection agency. We find merit in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that, in the facts and circumstances where a large number of candidates had participated, it was impractical to meet the above-mentioned mandate of publication of results on the very same day. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that Ext.P3 is only a clarification and non-compliance of clause 7 in publishing the result on the website of the PSC on the same day was only directory, calls for no interference. Moreover, no specific allegations had been made by the appellant, and only vague and unsubstantiated allegations have been put forth in the Writ Petition. No credible material points to irregularities or illegalities in the selection process have been put forth in the W.P.(C) and there is not WA NO. 415/2025 8 2025:KER:59409 even an allegation of malafides. Further, it is trite and settled that if the selection process is not cogently challenged, there can be no prayer for quashing of the select list, namely, Ext.P4.
Given the above, we do not find any cause or reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl