IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13275 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ALL INDIA CONFEDERATION OF SC/ST ORGANISATION, KERALA STATE COMMITTEE, ROOM NO.1, PRASANTH LODGE, GOVT.PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, K.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 75,S/O.KUCHUMUNDAN, JALADHARA ULLOOR BHASI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011 BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KESTON ROAD, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL R2 BY SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 13275/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGES 1,19 - 23) OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF R2. P2: COPY OF THE JOB NOTIFICATION DATED 27/01/2011. P3: COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS IN THE POSTS IN R2. P4: COPY OF THE PSC ROTATION CHART OF RESERVATION. P5: COPY OF THE REQUESTS DATED 16/03/2011 TO R1, R2 AND OTHER OFFICERS. P5(a):COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. P6: COPY OF THE APAPLICATION DATED 20/05/2011 UNDER THE RTI ACT P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/05/2011 FROM R1. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/06/2011 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13275 of 2011-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The grievance projected in this writ petition by the petitioner, an organization for promotion of welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is that while issuing Ext.P2 notification, the second respondent has not reserved any post for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. 2. Ext.P2 is the notification issued by the second respondent, viz. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Executive Director (one post), General Manager (one post) and Assistant Director (Projects) (two posts). The two posts in the cadre of Assistant Manager (Products) are reserved exclusively for Muslim candidates. 3. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P1, the Articles of Association of the second respondent and specifically Article 96(v) and contends that as the reservation rules applicable to Government servants are to be followed, the non reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates, is unconstitutional. wpc 13275/2011 2 4. The other ground raised in the writ petition is that even though the notification was issued on 27.1.2011, evidently the same was deferred due to the code of conduct published for the election to the Legislative Assembly, but an interview was hurriedly scheduled to be held on 14.5.2011. It is also stated that the petitioner had complained about the absence of any reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates, in Ext.P5 series representations. 5. This Court on 10.5.2011 directed the second respondent to file a statement. Accordingly, they have filed a statement and two additional statements as well as a counter statement in I.A. No.9236/2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the posts were notified as entry level posts and therefore the rules of reservation ought to have been applied. It is further pointed out that the second respondent had not been following the rules of reservation strictly which is evident from the reply given under the Right to Information Act and produced along with the reply affidavit and the petition for direction, viz. I.A. No.9236/2011. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition will have to be entertained and there should be a detailed examination of the issues raised in the writ petition. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent wpc 13275/2011 3 submitted that as far as the Management Cadre is concerned, the entry level post is Assistant Manager. There are four Scheduled Caste candidates in the Management Cadre of the second respondent out of 39 posts in the said cadre. Ext.P2 notification was issued by reserving two posts for Muslim candidates. No Muslim candidates are available in the Management Cadre in the Backward community category. It is further pointed out that the principles of reservation are being followed in the appointment to Management Cadre. 8. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, these facts have been explained. It is pointed out that applications were received and an interview was scheduled to be held on 12.3.2011 and due to election, the said interview was postponed, to be held on 14.5.2011. There was a screening committee constituted for the purpose of screening the candidates and the candidates were thus shortlisted by the committee and they were interviewed by the selection committee consisting of various persons. The details of the members of the two committees have been furnished in para 8 of the statement. 9. In the additional statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, in para 2 it has been stated that 14 candidates participated in the interview for appointment to the post of Executive Director and Shri wpc 13275/2011 4 T.P. Thomaskutty, the then General Manager-in-Charge of the second respondent was ranked first and he was selected and appointed to the post of Executive Director. He has assumed charge on 16.5.2011. Out of the 14 candidates, 8 were external candidates and 6 were internal candidates. 10. The petitioner filed I.A. No.9236/2011 along with the reply affidavit. It is pointed out that the last recruitments by the second respondent to the posts in question, were made in 2008-2009 and therefore reservation must be observed in the present appointments. It is further pointed out that the reservation has to be extended to all the three categories of posts. Ext.P6 is the copy of application submitted to the Government under the Right to Information Act which has been forwarded, going by Ext.P7, to the second respondent. The direction sought in I.A. No.9236/2011 is to the second respondent to produce the files regarding the selection and appointment. 11. A counter statement filed by the second respondent to the above interlocutory application. Therein, the locus standi of the petitioner who is representing a Federation of SC/ST organisations, to raise contentions on behalf of Ezhava and other Backward communities, is disputed. It is pointed out that out of the 39 posts in the Management Cadre there are four Scheduled Caste, four Ezhava and 5 other backward community candidates wpc 13275/2011 5 which satisfies the requirement of reservation principles. It is also stated in para 4 that for the post of General Manager, one external candidate Shri Biju George, Deputy General Manager, IDBI Bank, has been selected and already a letter of appointment has been issued to him. It is further stated that all the particulars sought by the petitioner have been furnished by Annexure R2(a) and that the allegations made in the reply affidavit are clearly malicious. 12. The petitioner has filed a second reply affidavit on 28.6.2011. Therein, a copy of the letter sent to the first respondent by the second respondent, in response to a query by a member of the Legislative Assembly, has been produced as Ext.P8. 13. Heard parties. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the rules of reservation have been flouted by the second respondent and therefore the appointments are bad in law. Learned counsel submitted that all the posts notified are entry level posts and therefore the reservation principles ought to have been applied by providing reservation for backward class candidates as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent submitted that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The wpc 13275/2011 6 entry level cadre is the post of Assistant Manager and out of 39 posts, four have been filled up by Scheduled Caste candidates. It is pointed out that two posts were reserved for Muslim candidates for the benefit of backward class candidates itself and there is no infirmity in the matter. It is also pointed out that there is absolutely no basis in the wild allegations raised by the petitioner in the affidavits filed before this Court. 16. Evidently, the writ petition concerns the non reservation of posts in Ext.P2 notification in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes. It cannot be disputed that the second respondent has made selections during different periods. There is no allegation in the writ petition with regard to the non conformity of the principles of reservation to the appointments already made and whether there is any backlog etc. Absolutely no materials are made available in the writ petition or in the affidavits subsequently filed by the petitioner about any violation of the principles of reservation by the second respondent. Apart from relying upon Article 96(v) of the Articles of Association, no other materials have been supplied in the writ petition. Evidently, the Management has contended that out of the 39 posts of Asst. Managers, four are Scheduled Caste candidates, i.e. 10% and the same satisfy the provisions of the Articles of Association. wpc 13275/2011 7 17. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the affairs of the second respondent to find out whether any alleged violations are there. Significantly, no candidate from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or from Backward community has come forward to raise any complaint regarding the notification. The petitioner is only an organization. The second respondent disputes the locus standi of the petitioner itself. I am not going into the details of the same, since even otherwise the writ petition lacks essential details for a proper consideration of the matter. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the replies furnished by the Government under the Right to Information Act and by the second respondent are not convincing. If the petitioner has got any grievance regarding the replies, then there is an effective remedy under the Right to Information Act to agitate the matter. 19. Evidently, the notification provides for reservation in the post of Asst. Manager and in respect of the other two posts, it was not for any reservation candidates. The candidates selected for the first two posts have been appointed already. None of the candidates who have participated in the selection process and interview, are arrayed as respondents in the writ petition also. wpc 13275/2011 8 20. The general nature of the averments made, may not be of any help to the petitioner in a matter like this. Evidently, it cannot be treated as a public interest litigation also, as it is well settled that in a service matter public interest litigation is not maintainable. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/