Kerala High Court
K.Gopakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2008
Author: Koshy
Bench: J.B.Koshy, P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1002 of 2008()
1. K.GOPAKUMAR,S/O. KRISHNA PANICKER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY THE
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
3. SECRETARY, KERALA HOUSING BOARD
4. B.S. CHERIAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
5. A.T.DILEEP KUMAR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
6. SHAJI VARGHESE, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :30/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.1002 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellant/petitioner unsuccessfully challenged Ext.P5 order by which respondents 4 to 6 were appointed as Senior Computer Programmers in the Kerala State Housing Board. Petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the second respondent Housing Board. The special rules applicable to the Housing Board establishment (Ext.P2) contemplates a Computer System Wing in the engineering branch of the Housing Board establishment. Qualification prescribed for the post of Senior Programmer is as follows:
1. By transfer from any service 1. Must be a graduate in of KSHB. Computer Engineering / Senior Technology Programmer 2. In the absence of suitable or candidates, under item (1) 2. Must be a Graduate above, by deputation / direct with PGDCA/MCA.
recruitment.
According to the petitioner, it is not mentioned in the special rules how selection should be made to the post of Senior Computer Programmer W.A.1002/2008 2 and, therefore, seniors with requisite qualification ought to have been preferred. Petitioner is senior to respondents 5 and 6. Admittedly, 4th respondent is much senior to the petitioner and he was working in a higher grade. It is also contended that in the special rules it is not made as a selection post and even if selection is conducted, it should have been done by a committee constituted as per the special rules. Here, the selection was conducted not by that committee, but, a committee consisted of two persons. Therefore, norms for appointment in the selection post was also not followed. It is further contended that the yard stick adopted by the committee was unreasonable and arbitrary. None of these contentions were accepted by the learned single Judge and hence this appeal.
2. We have considered the contentions of the petitioner and also gone through the files produced by the standing counsel for perusal as directed by us. The second respondent Housing Board at its meeting held on 28.2.2006, decided to invite applications for selecting candidates for the post of Senior Programmer. Six persons applied and all of them were called for interview. Five of them attended the interview including the petitioner. The interview board consisted of the Technical Director of the National Institute of W.A.1002/2008 3 Computers and the Additional Secretary of the Kerala State Housing Board. The interview was held on 29.3.2007. The following criteria was adopted for selection:
Maximum Marks Qualification 50 Experience 10 Aptitude 10 Presentation Skill 10 Service Weightage 10 Interview performance 10 Total 100 It is seen that 50 marks were awarded for qualification. The committee ranked the persons in the order of merit depending upon the marks scored by the candidates. Respondents 4 to 6 have scored marks higher than the petitioner and they were appointed by Ext.P5 order. Marks awarded to five candidates applied for the post are as follows:W.A.1002/2008 4
Sl. Name Quali Experi- Aptit- Presen- Service Interview Total No. fi- ence ude tation weigh- perform-
catio skill tage ance
n
50
M 10 10 10 10 10 100
1 B.S.Giressan 30 3 7 5 8 6 59
2 K.Gopakumar 25 3 7 4 6 6 51
3 Shaji Varghese 35 2 6 3 6 5 57
4 A.T.Dilipkumar 30 3 7 6 6 6 58
5 V.Sureshkumar 25 2 6 4 5 5 47
It is true that it is not a declared selection post like System Manager etc. At the same time, the method of appointment is by transfer of qualified hands. There is no feeder category as per special rules for appointment by transfer to the post of Senior Programmer. Therefore, that cannot be an insterse seniority among the applicants. Length of service per se was not shown as the criteria for appointment. Since special rules do not specifically mention about a specific method of selection, it is always open to the higher decision making body, i.e, the Board of Directors to make appropriate arrangements for proper selection of candidates. Technical Director of National Institute of Computers along with Additional Secretary of the Kerala State Housing Board were entrusted with the task of W.A.1002/2008 5 selecting the candidates. The criteria adopted by the above committee for assessing the merit of the candidates cannot be considered as arbitrary and unreasonable as held by the learned single Judge. The qualification, experience, aptitude etc. were given due consideration. No malafides are alleged against the members of the interview board.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that for qualification he has given lesser marks than respondents 3 and 4. As far as the 4th respondent is concerned, he is working as Junior Superintendent, a higher post than that is occupied by the petitioner and he was much senior. He passed B.Sc. with Mathematics main. He had also passed PGDCA in the examination conducted in November, 2001 by the State Board of Technical Education in first class. As far as fifth respondent is concerned, he had passed M.Sc. (Maths) with first class. He had also passed PGDCA in the examination conducted in July 1993 by the Institute of Human Resources Development for Electronics (IHRDE) with first class. Sixth respondent also passed B.Sc. with Mathematics main and also passed PGDCA in the examination conducted by the Institute of Human Resources Development for Electronics (IHRDE) with first W.A.1002/2008 6 class. Whereas, the petitioner who is a graduate passed Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications from a private institution (Ext.P1(a)). He had also completed a part time course on Computer Programming (BASIC) with practical training in IBM-PC conducted by the Directorate of Technical Education as can be seen from Ext.P1. But, there is no certificate showing that he has passed that examination. Ext.P1(a) is issued by a private institution. It is stated that he had also experience in that firm as an instructor. As far as selected respondents are concerned, they were also working in the computer section of the same establishment. Even though the petitioner was senior, all of them were working in the same category. Even though respondents have got a case that the petitioner had no requisite qualification, in view of Ext.P2 and in view of nature of qualification mentioned, the authorities considered him for the post. After considering marks and the criteria adopted by the Board, learned Judge correctly found that there is no scope for interference in a writ petition in the selection adopted especially when there was no malafides alleged against the members of the interview board or the persons who attended interview. In view of the finding of facts entered by the learned single Judge and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there are no W.A.1002/2008 7 grounds to interfere in the appointments by transfer to respondents 4 to 6 in the post of Senior Computer Programmer. Hence, we dismiss this appeal.
J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks