Kerala High Court
Lijin Das vs Chairman
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY2014/11TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).NO. 8616 OF 2013 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
LIJIN DAS, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O. SATHYA DAS, T.C. 55/1647,
LEELA NIVAS, AMBANAD, KAIMANAM. P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 040.
BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. CHAIRMAN,
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF LBS CENTRE
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2. DIRECTOR,
LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
NANDANVAM, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25/03/2014, THE COURT ON 02/07/2014 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).NO. 8616 OF 2013 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO. B7/4771/09
DATED 28-10-2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DATED 03-05-2011
PUBLISHED BY SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNAL ROTATION FOLLOWED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY PETITIONER'S
FATHER FOR DETAILS OF THE APPOINTMENTS MADE BY
THE RESPONDENTS UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
ON 10-01-2013.
EXHIBIT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYGIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER TO EXHIBIT.P4
EXHIBIT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 12-03-2013
REQUESTING TO RECTIFY THE ABOVE SAID ANOMALY
OCCURRED IN THE COMMUNAL ROTATION AND GIVE
APPOINTMENT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE APPLIED POST
OF LECTURER.
EXHIBIT. P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07/06/2013 SENT TO
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, LB.S. INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY FOR WOMEN.
EXHIBIT. P8 COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 17/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, L.B.S. INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY FOR WOMEN.
EXHIBIT. P9 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07/06/2013 SENT TO
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, L.B.S. COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING.
EXHIBIT. P10 COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 20/06/2013 ISSUED BY PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, L.B.S. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING.
EXHIBIT. P11 COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE ABOVE POST LECTURER
(COMPUTER SCIENCE) PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 2001.
EXHIBIT. P12 COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE ABOVE POST LECTURER
(COMPUTER SCIENCE) PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 2007.
........2/-
WP(C).NO. 8616 OF 2013 (B)
EXHIBIT.P13 COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES APPOINTED AS PER THE
COMMUNAL ROTATION IN THE ABOVE SAID POSTS FROM
1993 ONWARDS.
EXHIBIT.P14 COPY OF THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE HONOURABLE
EDUCATION MINISTER TO THE QUESTION ASKED BY
MR.A.T. GEORGE, MLA IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
ON 02/04/2013.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R2A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GOVERNING BODY DECISION
TAKEN ON 25/09/2002.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) No.8616 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the petitioner's request to rectify an anomaly alleged to have occurred in the communal rotation, in the appointment based on Ext.P2 ranked list, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
2. The respondents invited application from qualified hands for appointment to the various posts in the Engineering Colleges under LBS Centre for Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science Engineering/ Information Technology. After the selection procedure, his name was included in Ext.P2 supplementary list of Latin Catholic (LC)/ Anglo Indian.
3. He alleges that the respondents violated the communal rotation in the appointments though the community rotation followed by the Kerala Public Service Commission is applicable to the LBS Centre also after 25.9.2002. The petitioner further alleges that as per the community rotation, he was eligible to be appointed WP(C).8616/13 -:2:- in the 8th turn when Ext.P2 ranked list came into force. It is alleged that this was denied to the petitioner and in the 22nd turn, which was the next turn for LC, was given to a Scheduled Caste (SC), even though the petitioner was available in LC Category. Though the petitioner made Ext.P6 representation requesting to rectify the aforesaid anomaly, the 2nd respondent without considering it has taken steps to cancel Ext.P2 ranked list. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
4. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, they have admitted that the petitioner who belonged to LC community was included in the supplementary list for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian. They also admitted that as per Rules 14 to 17 of Part III KS&SSR, 8th, 22nd and 68th turns of appointment are reserved for LC community. According to them, they have published ranked lists for the post of Lecturer, Computer Science during the years 1993, 1998, 2006 and 2011. They contended that in the 20th meeting of the Governing Body of the Centre held on 25.9.2002, it was resolved to follow strictly the communal rotation for future appointments with effect from the aforesaid date. The compensation pending prior to the 20th meeting was not taken into WP(C).8616/13 -:3:- account for advising candidates subsequently though the cycle of rotation is being continued.
5. The second respondent further contended that since no SC candidate was available in the first ranked list prepared for lecturers in computer science against the turn of SC candidate, the candidate with Rank No.6 viz., Sri. Sabu M. Thampi who belonged to LC community was advised for appointment. They maintained the stand that there is no violation of Rules in observing communal rotation for appointment and, therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated his stand0.
7. Arguments have been heard.
8. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent published ranked lists for the post of post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, Computer Science/ Information Technology during the years 1993, 1998, 2006 and 2011. The ranked list for the aforesaid post published in the year 2001 and 2007 are produced and marked as Exts.P11 and P12 respectively. The list of candidates appointed as per communal rotation in the aforesaid post from 1993 is produced as Ext.P13. WP(C).8616/13 -:4:- These documents were obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act.
9. It is an admitted fact that 8th, 22nd and 68th turns of appointment were reserved for LC candidates. It is evident from Ext.P13 that when the 4th turn arose in 1993, one Sabu M. Thambi who belonged to LC category was appointed in that turn. Though the 4th turn was that of SC candidate it was given to LC candidate as no candidate from SC was available at that time. In order to compensate the vacancy at the 4th turn which was due to candidates from SC, one Liji P. J. was appointed when the 8th turn for LC candidate arose. The next turn of the LC candidate was the 22nd turn. In that turn appointment was given to one Sumithra M. D from Ext.P11 ranked list. She belonged to SC category. Thus, SC category got an extra benefit.
10. However, it can be seen from Ext.P12 ranked list that even though one Raji C. G, who belongs to LC category was included in the said list, she was not given appointment to compensate the backlog for LC. In that circumstances, the respondents should have given the 52nd turn to a candidate from LC community in order to compensate the 22nd turn. WP(C).8616/13 -:5:-
11. The appointments from Ext.P2 ranked list commences from 52nd turn of Ext.P3 communal rotation chart. To substantiate this, the petitioner has produced Ext.P14 which is the answer given by the Minister for Education to the question asked by Mr. A. T, George, MLA in the Legislative Assembly on 2.4.2013. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner should have been accommodated in the 52nd turn itself as the vacancy due to LC candidates has not been compensated. I see valid force in the said submission.
12. The stand taken by the respondent in the additional statement filed by them is that in the 20th meeting of the governing body of LBS Centre held on 25.9.2002 resolved to follow strictly the communal rotation for all appointments in the Centre and Colleges under it with effect from 25.9.2002. Annexure-R2(a) is the copy of the minutes of the 20th meeting. However, the reservation turn in respect of selections made after 25.9.2002 alone have been taken into account for appointments in the service of 2nd respondent and the compensation pending prior to the aforesaid decision is not taken into account for advising candidates for appointments. The said approach is not correct.
WP(C).8616/13 -:6:-
13. It is evident from the materials now placed on record that the backlog for LC candidates remained uncompensated even at the time when 52nd turn arose. Evidently, Ext.P2 ranked list starts from 22nd turn and as per Ext.P3 chart, 8th, 22nd and 68th turns are reserved for LC candidates as the SC candidates have derived extra benefit in the 22nd turn. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in computer Science and Engineering/Information Technology from Ext.P2 ranked list setting right the anomalies and irregularities in following the principle of communal rotation and reservation, and appoint LC candidate from the ranked list for the aforesaid post.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Judge krj