IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 642 of 2009(B) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- SAJITH.P.D., POLLAYIL HOUSE MAYITHARA PO, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KTDC CORPORATE OFFICE, MASCOT SQUARE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33 2. KITCO PLACEMENT PARK, LITTLE FLOWER CAMPUS, NH 47, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-22, REPRESENTED BY ITS PORJECT MANAGER. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED,SC FOR KTDC LTD. FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was an applicant to the post of Waiter which was notified by the 1st respondent as per Exhibit- P2. The written test was conducted on 2.8.2008. A short list of 114 candidates were published thereafter. The interview has also been conducted. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court mainly raising two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the 2nd respondent Organisation which has conducted the written test, as an agency appointed by the 1st respondent, was interested in various candidates. It is pointed out that they have been offering courses in Hotel Management and is an assessing body for NCVT certification. Therefore, the said agency ought not have been entrusted with the task of conducting the selection process. It is also contended that the said agency alone is entrusted with the task of conducting the interview W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009 2 also. 3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. It is pointed out that as per the provisions of the Service Rules of the Corporation, prescribing method of recruitment, the 1st respondent Corporation had notified 15 vacancies of Waiters on regular basis to the Divisional Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram. Exhibit R1(c) is the said notification. The vacancies were also notified in leading dailies like Mathrubhumi and Indian Express dated 20.2.2008, which is evidenced by Exhibit -R1 (d). The assignment for conducting a written test for 484 applicants who were possessing required qualifications as per the notification was entrusted to the 2nd respondent, which is an HR consultancy Division of KITCO established by Industrial Development Bank of India and Government of Kerala. First respondent wanted to ensure transparency in the conduct of written test. 315 candidates appeared for the written test and 169 candidates were absent. W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009 3 4. The interview has been conducted between 8.1.2009 and 20.1.2009. The same was conducted by an Interview Board constituted by the Board of Directors as per Resolution No.5413 taken in the meeting held on 29.11.2008. The interview Board consisted of Chairman, KTDC, Managing Director KTDC and three other Board Members as provided in the service rules of the Corporation. As per Exhibit R1 (e), the Managing Director was also authorised to co-opt a subject expert in the relevant field and the Secretary and Finance Controller to assist the committee. Details regarding the allotment of marks in the written test are stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. 5. In the light of the above position reflected in the counter affidavit, the contention raised by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is the sole agency appointed by the 1st respondent to conduct the written test and interview cannot be accepted. Therefore, the allegations of malafides or irregularities in the matter of the selection process falls to the ground. It is clear from the averments in the W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009 4 counter affidavit that to maintain transparency and to ensure a proper selection, the 1st respondent has taken various steps and the agency that is appointed is a Governmental agency and they have got required expertise in the matter of conducting written test also. Therefore, this Court at this stage cannot interfere with the selection process as no vitiating factors have been established in support of the averments in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No.642 of 2009 6