Kerala High Court
A.Sajeevkumar Alias Asajeevan vs Kerala Minerals And Metals Limited on 24 June, 1977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937
WP(C).No. 37949 of 2010 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
--------------------
1. A.SAJEEVKUMAR ALIAS ASAJEEVAN
MANGALASSERIL, MADAPPALLY, MUKUNDAPURAM.P.O.
CHAVARA.
2. GOPAKUMAR.S., UDAYATHUM VEEDU, PANMANA,
PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED
SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES (H) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. NISHAD.J., KOTTAYADIYIL,
VADAKKUMTHALA EAST.P.O., PARAMBIMUKKU-691 583.
4. ANJAN.T.R., THULASI MANDIRAM,
NEELESWARAM.P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691 506.
5. DHANESH.T., KARIMPARAYIL HOUSE,
CHITTOOR, PONMANA.P.O., CHAVARA.-691 583.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH
ADVS. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC, KMML
SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
SRI.K.NIRMALAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2015,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 37949 of 2010 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 - COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 24.06.1977.
EXT.P2 - COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER'S FATHER.
EXT.P3 - COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER'S FATHER.
EXT.P4 - COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.01.1989 FROM THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 - COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 - COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.08.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P7 - COPY OF REPLY DATED 31.08.2010 SENT BY THE
INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P8 - COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE INTERVIEW PROCEEDINGS
FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF JUNIOR TECHNICIAN
(ELECTRICIAN) IN THE MS UNIT OF THE COMPANY.
EXT.P9 - COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 20.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (P&A) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R3(A) - COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(B) - COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DURING THE
SELECTION PROCESS SHOWING HIS ELIGIBILITY AND
QUALIFICATIONS.
EXT.R3(B1) - COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE
PANMANA PANCHAYATH FOR THE PERIOD 2005-2006 WITH
RESPECT TO HOUSE NO.PP XI/692 PERTAINING TO THE
RESIDENCE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(C) - COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DURING HIS
SELECTION.
[CONTD.....]
WP(C).No. 37949 of 2010 (P) 2
EXT.R3(C1) - COPY OF ARECENT LICENCE ISSUED TO THE SAID
ESTABLISHMENT ROM THE ETUMANOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
EXT.R3(D) - COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS ELIGIBILITY BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(E) - COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.71/2005/ID
DATED 14.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(F) - COPY OF GO(RT) NO.718/2010/ID DATED 24.05.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(F1) - COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION ISSUED FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT AS GO(RT) 1168/2010/ID DATED 11.08.2010.
EXT.R3(G) - COPIES OF THE FORM-6 APPLICATIONS ISSUED TO
EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
ESTABLISHMENT.
EXT.R3(H) - COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF INTERVIEW FOR THE POST
OF JUNIOR TECHNICIAN (ELECTRICIAN) ISSUED FROM THE
1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS FORWARDING LETTER.
EXT.R1(A) - COPY OF MINUTES OF INTERVIEW PROCEEDINGS.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P(C). No.37949 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who claim to be evictees, are aggrieved by the appointment made of respondents 3 to 5 to the first respondent Company. The petitioners, on the basis of Ext.P1, contend that as early as in the year 1977, when the petitioners' families were evicted from their houses and lands, for the purpose of establishing the first respondent, there was a conciliation talk, in which as per Point No.6 in Ext.P1, preference was to be given to the evictees for employment in the first respondent Company, to posts which are not conceded to the Public Service Commission.
2. The decision taken at Ext.P1 was reduced by the Government to an order as is indicated in Ext.P4. The persons to be granted appointments on a preferential basis were the W.P(C). No.37949 of 2010 2 following, on the priority order, as indicated in Ext.P4 itself, which is extracted herein:
"1. Evictees
2. Persons whose land has been taken.
3. Persons belonging to surrounding Panchayaths who have been working at the project site."
3. The petitioners on the basis of Exts.P2&P3, claimed that none can dispute their status as evictees of lands. A notification was brought out by the KMML as indicated at Ext.P5, specifically for the purpose of making appointments to the post on Junior Technician (Fitter) and Junior Technician (Electrician) from the preferential categories as is indicated in Ext.P5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the apprentices, who did not figure in Exts.P1 and P4, have been included in the notification and that respondents 3 to 5 have been appointed, while they cannot claim any such preference.
4. The question of apprentices being included in Ext.P5, cannot be raised by the petitioner, especially since the same is by virtue of Circular No.32199/J3/90/ID dated 01.08.1990 issued by the Government with respect to the appointments to Public W.P(C). No.37949 of 2010 3 Sector undertakings. The inclusion of apprentices under the preferential category hence is in pursuance of the policy decision of the Government. In any event, the petitioners, who applied under Ext.P5 notification and participated in the selection process, turned around and challenged the notification as such; which cannot be countenanced.
5. The petitioners' contention, that the order of preference has not been followed, cannot be countenanced in view of the Mark list produced by the respondents as Ext.R1(a). Respondents 3 to 5 are persons shown as Serial Nos.1,5 and 14, who obtained the maximum marks in the selection procedure and were placed at rank No.1,2 and 3. Though preference has to be, as per the order indicated at Ext.P4, such preference can be allowed only in cases where two candidates are found to be similar with respect to their merit. There can be no such contention raised herein, since the petitioners obtained much less marks than respondents 3 to 5 as is indicated in Ext.R1(a). Hence, the appointment of the respondents 3 to 5 cannot be faulted only on the ground that the order of preference has not been followed.
W.P(C). No.37949 of 2010 4
6. The further contention is with respect to the eligibility of each of the party respondents. The 3rd respondent is an evictee and is also an apprentice, as is indicated in Ext.P7 and the 4th respondent is a person entitled to preference as an apprentice. The 5th respondent is a person belonging to the nearby Panchayath and also engaged by the contractors at the work site of the first respondent. The documents evidencing such eligibility is produced by respondents 3 to 5 in their Counter Affidavit dated 10.04.2012. A perusal of the documents would indicate that, it substantiates the claim of each of the respondents.
In such circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
sp //True Copy// P.A. to Judge