Kerala High Court
Surya A.B vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2024
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945
WA NO.455 OF 2023
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6146/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 22.2.2023
----------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
SURYA A.B., AGED 34 YEARS
D/O.BHASY A.T, ALLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARATTUVAZHI,
NJARAKKAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 505
BY ADVS.
P.N.SANTHOSH
K.P.GEETHA MANI(K/155/1991)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND PORTS,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKASBHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BYITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA STATE, PIN - 695 004.
4 THE THAHSILDAR
KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682 001.
5 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED(MATSYAFED)
REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
6 THE COMMISSIONER,
KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, HEAD OFFICE,
WA NO.455 OF 2023
-: 2 :-
AYYAPPA NAGAR, POOKUNNAM.P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 002.
7 THE FISHERIES OFFICER
KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, NARAKKAL,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 505
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
JOE J URUVATH
ALEX K.JOHN(K/1038/2001)
SABIR N.S.(K/1554/2020)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.455 OF 2023
-: 3 :-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024 Anu Sivaraman, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in as much as it refuses to consider the contention of the appellant that she was dependent on her father for her livelihood and thus rejected the application is not proper. It is contended that the appellant's father was a fisherman and that the rejection of her claim for dependency certificate on the ground that he is still living was incorrect. It is further contended that since the reasons stated in the order rejecting the dependency certificate were misconceived, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition. The learned counsel would also contend that the reasons stated for rejecting the request of the appellant for dependency certificate were referable to the Government Orders with regard to payment of compensation and were not relatable to public employment. It is stated that where public employment is concerned, all eligible WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 4 :- candidates ought to have been considered and that the question of dependency should be liberally construed. It is submitted that the word 'dependent' is not defined either in the notification or in any of the Government Orders or enactments relatable to the issue including in the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Societies Act, 1980 and that therefore, the claim of the appellant could belong to the fishermen community ought to have been considered.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in C.B. Muthamma Miss, I.F.S. v. Union of India and others [(1979) 4 SCC 260] to contend that declining the benefits to women dependents only because they were married while such restrictions are not available in case of male dependents is completely illegal. Further, the decision of the Apex Court in Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab and another [(2002) 4 SCC 154] is also relied on to contend that a classification within a class, unless it is based on real and substantial grounds, would be impermissible.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent submits that the 6th respondent had specifically considered the issue of dependency while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. It is stated that the appellant had claimed that she was dependent on her father, who was a fisherman. It is stated that the WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 5 :- 6th respondent had, on making enquiries, found that the appellant was not dependent on her father and that she was holding a temporary employment in the Fisheries Department and that dependency, if any, was on her husband, who was not a fisherman and in respect of whom, no dependency had been claimed. It is submitted that the question has to be considered in terms of the notification under which the appellant applied and that the terms of the notification being clear, the appellant could seek benefits only on the basis of the same.
5. The learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission would also contend that the issue has to be considered specifically in terms of the notification.
6. The notification was issued calling for applications for appointment to the post of Project Officer from qualified candidates. The method of appointment was direct recruitment from fishermen/ dependent of fishermen community. Note (4) to the qualifications specifically provides as follows :-
"4) The eligible employees of Fishermen/Dependent of Fishermen who apply for the above post should obtain the Certificate from the Revenue Officials. The Revenue Officials concerned will issue the dependency certificate on the basis of the certificate issued by the Fisheries Officer concerned stating that the person belongs to the category of Fishermen.
WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 6 :- (Fishermen means any person engaged mainly in fishing operations for the livelihood. Dependents means Wife/Husband, Son/Daughter, Father/Mother of deceased sons or daughters wholly dependent on fishermen). The Dependency Certificate showing the details of the applicant, which render them eligible to apply for the post and should upload the same in their profile and the original shall be produced when required by the Commission. Applications that upload Dependency Certificate at the time of submission will only be considered. The Dependency Certificate should contain the following details."
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an erratum notification has been issued as evidenced by Ext.P15 amending Note (4) making the dependents of fishermen, who are alive also, eligible to apply. It is, therefore, contended that the rejection of the request on the ground that her father is still alive is incorrect.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions raised by the appellant and has held that the rejection of the application by Ext.P14 order was on the finding that the appellant was not wholly dependent on her father. It was observed in the judgment that the appellant and her husband were employed and there was no specific contention to the effect that the appellant was wholly dependent on her father. In the light of Note (4) in Ext.P1 notification, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 7 :- the rejection of the request for dependency certificate on the ground that the dependency could not be proved, cannot be said to be illegal.
9. Having considered the contentions advanced on both sides, we are unable to hold otherwise. Note (4) of Ext.P1 specifically provides that a person to be eligible to apply under the category of dependent of fishermen should obtain a certificate from the Revenue Officials. The Revenue Officials were to issue the dependency certificate on the basis of the certificate issued by the Fisheries Officer stating that the person belongs to the category of fishermen or is wholly dependent on fishermen. It is clear from the materials on record that the appellant had contended that she is fully dependent on her father, but the said claim was found to be factually incorrect. The 6th respondent, on considering the contention, came to the conclusion that she and her husband both being otherwise employed, she was not wholly dependent on her father for her livelihood and therefore, could not be considered as a dependent of the fisherman, that is the father.
Having gone through the records produced and the judgments relied on, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the appellant had produced material to show that she was dependent on her father, who was a fisherman. We are, therefore, WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 8 :- of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE Jvt/17.1.2024 WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 9 :- APPENDIX OF WA 455/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER FROM FISHERMAN WELFARE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY NARACKAL-NAYARAMBALAM ON 20- 03-2007.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBSCRIPTION RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER FOR THE YEAR 2023-2024 ON 24-03-2023.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE CATEGORY NO.221/2020 FOR THE POST OF PROJECT OFFICER PART II (FISHERMAN/ DEPENDENT OF FISHERMAN CATEGORY) ISSUED BY THE PSC ON 01-06-2023 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA FISHERMEN WELFARE SOCIETIES ACT,1980 .
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED THE PSC FOR THE CATEGORY NO.221/2020 ON 04/08/2023.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28.10.2023.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER RTI FROM THE FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA ON 08.11.2023 .