Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar V.K vs Hindustan Machine Tool Limited on 12 July, 2013
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/22ND SRAVANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 530 of 2014 (M)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
ANIL KUMAR V.K
VELLAMKUZHIYIL, THYKATTUKARA P.O., AMBATTUKAVU
ALUVA - 683 106.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.ANILA PETER
SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE
SMT.C.PRABITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOL LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT COLONY P.O
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 683 503.
2. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOL LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, HMT COLONY P.O.
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 683 503.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
WP(C).No. 530 of 2014 (M)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF COMPANY TRAINEE
INVITED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED BY THE RESPONENTS TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 12/7/2013.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN W.P.
(C) NO.14054/2012 DTD 07.11.2013
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.530 of 2014-M
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had been working as a 'Pattern Maker' under the respondents. In the year 2010, the respondents invited applications to the post of 'Company Trainee'. The petitioner was one of the applicants. However, the selection was not conducted. Therefore, the petitioner along with 12 others had approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner and his subordinates to dispose of the same. Accordingly, the Regional Labour Commissioner disposed of the same. The respondents thereafter invited applications to 14 posts, one of which was for Pattern Maker. The petitioner submitted an application and appeared for written test. He passed the written test. Therefore, he was called for an interview. However, he has not been selected.
-:2:- W.P.(C) No.530 of 2014-M
2. According to the petitioner, some of the persons who had attended the interview had filed writ petition W.P. (C) No.14054 of 2012 before this Court. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by judgment dated 16.12.2013. Pursuant to the judgment, it is contended that they were appointed. The petitioner also seeks similar appointment.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Advocate Saji Varghese appears for the respondents. I have heard the respective counsel.
4. According to the statement filed, it is admitted that the petitioner had applied for the post. But, the stand of the respondents is that, he had not obtained the requisite marks at the interview. The relevant portion of paragraph 1 of the statement reads as follows:-
The petitioner had applied to the above post in the trade of Pattern Maker. He participated in the written test and since he passed the written test, he was called for interview. The maximum marks fixed for interview was 50 and the minimum cut-off mark fixed for qualifying -:3:- W.P.(C) No.530 of 2014-M in the interview was 15. The petitioner got only 12 marks. Since he did not get the minimum cut-off marks the interview, he was not selected. This being the position, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction to appoint him in the post of Company Trainee.
5. According to the statement, the petitioner was not working as an employee of the company. He was only under a Contractor for some time and had left the job by the end of 2007. It is also contended that the petitioners in W.P.(C) NO.14054 of 2012 are not similarly appointed. A certified copy of the judgment in the said writ petition has been handed over to me by the counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the said judgment. In the said writ petition, W.P.(C) No.14054 of 2012 and conn. case, the petitioners had been employees of the first respondent company. However, they were over aged for submitting applications to the post of Company Trainee that was notified. It was the said issue that was directed to be decided. The petitioner therein was also directed to be provisionally permitted to undergo the selection process. -:4:- W.P.(C) No.530 of 2014-M This Court found that by virtue of the settlement arrived at between the company and its workmen, persons working in the establishment under contract employment were also permitted to participate in the selection process. This Court has therefore considered the issue and has passed the following directions:-
Considering equity involved in the matter, and in order to ensure an equal protection and rights to the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the persons found as qualified shall be directed to be appointed in consequence of the selection process conducted. The above being the fact situation in which this Court has issued the direction, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the said direction. In the present case, the petitioner had passed the written test and was called for an interview. The case of the respondents is that he had not qualified at the interview, having scored only 12 marks, which is less than the cut off marks of 15 that was stipulated. Since the petitioner had not qualified at the -:5:- W.P.(C) No.530 of 2014-M interview, I am not satisfied that any direction to appoint the petitioner should be issued in this case.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj