IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2011/22ND ASHADAH 1933 WP(C).No. 13967 of 2011 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- VALLI PANDARAVALAPPIL, D/O.NANU NALLAVEETTIL HOUSE, MUZHAPPILANGAD P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) KANNUR - 670 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KANNUR - 670 001. 5. RATHI DEVI.K., KORANCHIRATH (H), CHAKKIKULAM P.O., KOODALI KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- WP(C).No. 13967 of 2011 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1. TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT REGISTRATION CARD EVIDENCING THE REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE YEAR 1976. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTER DATED 03.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PART-TIME SWEEPER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE kkj C.T. RAVIKUMAR .J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C).No. 13967 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 J UD G M E N T The petitioner and the 5th respondent were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Part-time Sweeper in the Health Services Department. After a due selection process, the 5th respondent was selected and appointed as Part-time Sweeper as per ExtP3. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 selection list and also with a further prayer for a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Part- Time Sweeper. It is also prayed to set aside Ext.R1(a) in so far as it prescribes 10 marks in interview without any guideline. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that she was the senior most among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In the absence of any guideline, the provision to award 10 marks in the interview is arbitrary. It is also contended that the guidelines prescribed by the 2 WP(C) 13967/2011 Government did not contemplate an interview and therefore, the very conduct of the interview for the post of Part-Time Sweeper is liable to be interfered with. According to the petitioner the prescription of 10 marks for the interview out of a total mark of 50 itself invites interference by this Court. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent along with a counter affidavit. First respondent has produced Ext.R1(a) which is the norms for selection. Going through Ext.R1(a), the selection committee consisted of the District Medical Officer, as Chairman, the Deputy Medical Officer and a Doctor nominated by the District Medical Officer as members. It is the case for the petitioner that no interview as such was conducted by such a committee and what was done was only a verification of the records. The criteria for awarding marks have been specifically given under Ext.R1(a). It is contended that under the heads educational qualification, age, employment, 3 WP(C) 13967/2011 seniority etc, the petitioner was given full marks. At the same time, she lacked previous experience, whereas the selected candidate, the 5th respondent was having such experience. The marks awarded based on the criteria, given under Ext.R1(a), fetched the petitioner and the 5th respondent 30 and 30.5 marks respectively. It is in the said circumstances that the 5th respondent was selected and consequently given appointment in preference to the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious that a specific criteria have been adopted in the matter of selection. Learned Government Pleader made available the records including the score sheet. On perusing the score sheet pertaining to the selection, it would reveal that the criteria specified under Ext.R1(a) have been scrupulously followed in the matter of selection in question. It is also evident that from the score sheet, the 5th respondent secured 30.5 marks where as the petitioner secured only 30 marks. In the said circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that 4 WP(C) 13967/2011 illegality has been occurred in the matter of selection is absolutely bereft any basis. In these circumstances I am of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the selection held by the respondents for the appointment of part-time sweeper and consequently selecting the 5th respondent. There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE kkj