Kerala High Court
Sebastian M. Vattamala vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/2ND ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No. 4069 of 2009 (H)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
SEBASTIAN M. VATTAMALA,
NAYATHUKULANGARA HOUSE,
VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 636 632.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT,
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2.THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LTD., KISSAN JYOTHI,
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 023,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES
R2 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 4069 of 2009 (H)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A1/5 DATED 25.8.2005
OF ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PUBLISHED IN `MALAYALA
MANORAMA' DAILY.
EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF INTERVIEW COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF CHIEF
ENGINEER ON RS.3900-5075( PRE-REVISED) HELD ON
4.5.2006.
EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 216TH MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON
5.5.2006.
EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1/5/2637 DATED 12.5.2006
OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1/5/1071 DATED 24.10.2007
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1/5/173 DATED 3.3.2008
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.12673/PU3/06/AD
DATED 12.6.2008 ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 212TH
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION
HELD ON 7.6.2005.
EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.632.09/AD DATED 20.4.09.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C)No.4069 of 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2014
JUDGMENT
This writ petition was originally filed seeking direction to the 1st respondent to accord sanction to the 2nd respondent to fill up the post of Chief Engineer, within a time limit. Inter alia, the petitioner sought for a direction to make ensure that the petitioner is appointed as Chief Engineer, based on the position of 1st rank secured by him in the selection conducted, as revealed from Ext.P2. Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent, subsequent to filing of this writ petition consequent to a direction issued in an interim order dated 17/02/2009 is also now subjected to challenge by way of amendment brought in the writ petition.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case is that, the 2nd respondent corporation invited application to fill up the post of Chief Engineer, through Ext.P1 Notification published. Ext.P2 would indicate that the petitioner was selected as a candidate ranked No.1, as per proceedings of W.P.(C)No.4069 of 2009 2 the selection committee. Since approval from the Government is required for making appointment, as per the stipulations in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the 2nd respondent corporation, the Government was approached by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P4 request. A clarification sought for by the Government was replied by the corporation through Exts.P5 and P6. Thereupon the Government requested the corporation to furnish details of the selected names. Thereafter the matter was kept pending indefinitely, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. As observed above, pursuant to an interim direction issued from this court, now the Government have declined sanction for filling up the post of Chief Engineer, through Ext.P9 proceedings. The Petitioner is now challenging Ext.P9 decision of the Government, as totally illegal, improper and unjustifiable.
3. In Ext.P9 proceedings the Government found that the 2nd respondent corporation had reported that post of Chief Engineer was sanctioned by virtue of a Government W.P.(C)No.4069 of 2009 3 order dated 22/10/1973 for the then existing 'Kubota Project'. But after some time, with the formation of the Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation, the above project was delinked from the 2nd respondent corporation. According to the Government the selection process was conducted by anticipating approval from the Government. It is noticed that the functions of the Chief Engineer is now being managed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (operations) and the affairs of the corporation are running smoothly. While examining the request of the 2nd respondent corporation for filling up the post, it was found that the post was lying vacant from September 2004 onwards and that the Government have taken a policy decision to abolish all the posts lying vacant over a period of one year. Further it is observed that the 2nd respondent corporation is facing severe financial crisis and the accumulated loss incurred by the corporation as on 31/03/2008 comes to Rs.1459.17 Lakhs. It is mentioned that the Government have already conducted a feasibility study on the question of restructuring of the corporation W.P.(C)No.4069 of 2009 4 and it was decided to limit the recruitments in the corporation to the minimum possible posts. Hence the Government considered that it is not necessary to accord sanction for filling up the post of Chief Engineer.
4. It is true that the 2nd respondent corporation had initiated steps for filling up of the post of Chief Engineer and a selection was conducted on the basis of Ext.P1 Notification. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner came out as successful in securing Rank No.1 in the selection process. Admittedly, the post can be filled up only after obtaining prior sanction from the Government, as per the terms of constitution of the 2nd respondent corporation. The Government have declined sanction for filling up the post for reasons mentioned in Ext.P9. Question remains as to whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge such a decision. In other words, whether the petitioner can claim appointment on the basis of the selection as a matter of right.
5. Filling up of a vacancy in the Government or in any corporation fully owned by the Government is a W.P.(C)No.4069 of 2009 5 matter which is coming within the realm of administrative exigencies and policies of the Government. Merely because the petitioner was selected for appointment and his name was included in the rank list prepared, he cannot claim posting, as a matter of right. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the reasonings adopted by the Government in declining sanction to the 2nd respondent to fill up the post. Because, as observed above, it is a matter purely coming within the administrative policies and prerogatives of the Government. It remains settled in various precedents that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the selection list will not confer him any right to claim appointment. It is left open to the employer to decide as to whether the post need to be filled up or not. Further this Court do not find any prima facie reasons to hold that the reasonings mentioned in Ext.P9 for declining sanction is totally arbitrary or perverse or unreasonable. Hence none of the grounds raised in this writ petition deserves consideration to interfere with Ext.P9 decision W.P.(C)No.4069 of 2009 6 and to direct appointment of the petitioner in the post of Chief Engineer.
In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL