IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37308 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- LALITHA V. AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. LATE BALAN, HARISREE, NEAR M.S.P. HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, THEYYALA P.O., NANNAMBARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), MALAPPURAM. 2. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, MALAPPURAM. 3. SHEELA K.P., KARIPPATH PALLIKANDI, ANJAPPURA, PARAPPANANGDI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. OMANA J., THEKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, UPPADA P.O., POTTENTHARAIPPA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THULASI C.M, PATHAYAPARAMBIL, EZHUVATHIRUTHY, PONNAI, MALAPPURAM DIST. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R3 SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI FOR R3 SRI.E.NARAYANAN FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37308/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PAGE 1 OF THE SSLC BOOK ALONG WITH THE MARK SHEET. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DEATH, ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH DT 15.9.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 28.5.2009 REGARDING THE INTERVIEW. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 27.7.09 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NANNAMBRA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 17.8.09 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 24.8.09 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 24.9.09 FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION, ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DT 31.10.2009. EXT.P9(a): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 2.11.09 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE MARKSHEET DT 1.7.09. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 24.6.09 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(a): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 29.6.09 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(b): TRUE COPY of CERTIFICATE DT 29.6.09 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(c): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 22.6.09 ISSUED TO NALINI A. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPTS, DT 8.1.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37308 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T In response to the requisition made by the 1st respondent for sponsoring candidates for appointment to the post of Part Time Sweepers, 2nd respondent sponsored candidates including the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. They were interviewed and Ext.P10 is the consolidated statement of the marks awarded to each of the candidates. Petitioner was awarded 31.5 marks and respondents 3 to 5 were awarded 36.5, 35 and 33.5 marks respectively. Respondents 3 to 5 were appointed and it is challenging their appointment, the writ petition is filed. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the Circular No13138/F2/05/H&FWD dated 24/5/05 issued by the Government of Kerala, Health and Family Welfare (F) Department, persons falling within the special category are entitled to 5 marks. It is stated that the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are widows falling within the special category. According to the petitioner, though recognising their status as widows, respondents 3 to 5 were given five marks each, WPC No. 37308/09 :2 : this was denied to the petitioner. If five marks were also given to the petitioner, she would have been eligible to be appointed in the place of the 5th respondent. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner contends that she is also entitled to be appointed as Part Time Sweeper under the 1st respondent. 3. The 5th respondent contended that Ext.P5 is the certificate, which is claimed to have been produced by the petitioner during the interview, which was held on 1/7/09, whereas the certificate which the petitioner claims to have produced, viz., Ext.P5 is dated 27/7/2009. According to the 5th respondent, the non production of the certificate alone could be the reason for not awarding five marks to the petitioner. 4. However, counsel for the petitioner referring to a certificate which she had obtained from the Village Officer (though not produced in Court), submitted that the date 27/7/09 mentioned in Ext.P5 was a mistake and that the certificate was actually issued on 27/6/09. 5. Irrespective of the correctness of this contention, learned Government Pleader submits that the certificate was declined to be acted upon for the reason that the address of the WPC No. 37308/09 :3 : petitioner mentioned in Ext.P5 certificate varied with the address in the list furnished by the Employment Exchange. 6. Ext.P4 is the interview call letter and the address shown in the interview call letter is similar to the address in the cause title in this writ petition. On the other hand, the address of the petitioner as indicated in Ext.P5 is W/o Late Kunnath Balan, Nannambra Village, Tirurangadi Taluk. The address in the certificate therefore substantially varies from the address shown in the list furnished by the Employment Exchange, which is also mentioned in the interview call letter. Since the address of the petitioner as shown in the cause title and list forwarded by the Employment Officer substantially varies with the address shown in Ext.P5 certificate, I cannot find fault with the 1st respondent for not having accepted the certificate and awarded the petitioner marks, which candidates in the special category are eligible for. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp