IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 15641 of 2010(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHINY GEORGE, FEMALE COUNSELLOR INTEGRATED COUNSELING AND TESTING CENTRE, KALPETTA, (RESIDING AT THEKKEVEETTIL, KRISHNAGIRI MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KALPETTA. 4. MS.RAJITHRA A.R, THE COUNSELLOR INTEGRATED COUNSELING & TESTING CENTRE PULPALLY, WAYANAD DIST. 5. MR.JUFILE HUSSAIN P.T. THE COUNSELLOR INTEGRATED COUNSELING & TESTING CENTRE PULPALLY, WAYANAD DIST. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA STATE AIDS CONTROL FOR R1-2 SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. - GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15641 of 2010 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONE AND R3 DATED 1.12.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD 25.11.09 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND R3. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 06.05.2010 FROM R3 TO R2. EXT.P4: COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R1 AND PUBLISHED IN MALAYALAMANORAMA DAILY DTD 8.8.2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF COUNSELLORS FOR THE WAYANAD DISTRICT. EXT.P6: COPY OF LETTER DTD 6.5.2010 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF MASTER SCORE SHEET FOR THE INTERVIEWS HELD ON 17.12.09 AND 18.12.09. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF COMPILATION OF MARKS FOR THE WRITTEN TEST AND INTERVIEW FOR THE POST OF COUNSELLOR FOR WAYANAD DISTRICT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 15641 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T While working as Counsellor at Integrated Counselling and Testing Centre, Kalpetta, the petitioner responded to a notification issued by the first respondent inviting applications for appointment of Counsellors on contract basis for one year. After the selection process, a ranked list was drawn up, in which the petitioner was included as rank No.9 for Wayanad District. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that persons, who do not have the qualifications prescribed for the post, have been included in the list, as a result of which the petitioner who possess all the required qualifications would not get appointment. On 2.6.2010, this Court passed the following interim order: “From the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2, it is obvious that many persons who are included in the ranked list do not meet the experience prescribed in Ext.P4 notification. This appears to be the position of respondents 4 & 5 also, who have already been appointed. Having regard to the above, it is ordered that W.P.(c)No.15641/10 2 no person, who does not satisfy the eligibility specified in Ext.P4 notification, shall be appointed as counsellor, over looking the petitioner, who is included in the ranked list at serial No.9”. It is now admitted by respondents 1 and 2 that persons, who do not possess the qualifications prescribed in the notification inviting applications, have been included in the ranked list. This, they have done only because the number of qualified persons were lesser than the number vacancies available and the appointment is only for one year. 2. I am of opinion that even if there are vacancies, when notification has been issued with specific qualifications, persons not having the required qualifications cannot be considered for selection. In any event when the petitioner had all the required qualifications, unqualified persons could not have been appointed before appointing the petitioner. It is admitted before me that the petitioner does have the qualifications and if the unqualified persons are excluded from the ranked list, the petitioner would get appointment. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to appoint the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give the appointment to the petitioner W.P.(c)No.15641/10 3 pursuant to the selection process within one week from today. As far as the others are concerned, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to make fresh selection in accordance with law. In so far as it is only a contractual appointment for a period of one year, for that period, the other persons from the ranked list may be appointed. However, they shall not be continued beyond the contract period under any circumstances. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.15641/10 4 W.P.(c)No.15641/10 5