IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22182 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- K.C. JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, KODAKKATTU VEEDU, PALAD, MANIMOOLI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PLANTATION CORPORTION OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. 2. SRI.T.J. ANJALOSE, CHAIRMAN, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,KOTTAYAM. 3. SRI BABU THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,KOTTAYAM. 4. SRI P. GOPALA KRISHNAN, TAPPER, PF NO.10 PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. PALAKKAYAM DIVISION, NILAMBUR ESTATE P.O., MUKKALLA RS,NILAMBUR TALUK. 5. SRI GOPI , TAPPER PF NO.2, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PUNJAKKOLLI DIVISION, NILAMBUR ESTATE P.O.,MUKKALLA RS,NILAMBUR TALUK. 6. SRI DINA CHANDRAN M.P, PF . NO.8, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PALAKKAYAM DIVISION, NILAMBUR ESTATE P.O.,MUKKALLA RS,NILAMBUR TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. JOSEPH MARKOSE, R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22182/2008-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT. 01/08/05. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LIST OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN THE WRITTEN TEST DT. 01/10/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS AWARDED DTD 17/10/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22182 OF 2008 (N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a rubber tapper working in the Nilampur Rubber plantation of the first respondent, a Government company. He joined service on 12.4.1986. While continuing in service, he came across Ext.P1 circular issued by the first respondent inviting applications from tappers like him for the post of Tapping Supervisor. A reading of Ext.P1 itself shows that there was only one vacancy. It would appear that in response to Ext.P1, apart from the petitioner, respondents 4 to 6 had also submitted their applications. Written test was conducted and that was followed by an interview. Finally as against the one vacancy notified, respondents 4 to 6 were appointed to 3 vacancies. It was there upon that the writ petition was filed challenging the selection and appointment. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, only the notified vacancy could have been filled up and if more vacancies had arisen subsequently, the first respondent ought to have initiated separate proceedings for filling up the additional WPC.No. 22182/08 :2 : vacancies. It is also contended that respondents 4 to 6 were selected only on account of their political influence by manipulating the selection process. Counsel refers to Ext.P3, the statement prepared by the interview board, containing the marks awarded for written test, service mark, academic qualification and for interview. Counsel submits that although the petitioner had secured highest marks for written test he was awarded lowest mark for interview and that with this manipulation the company ensured that respondents 4 to 6 are selected and appointed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the company they say that there were three vacancies and that respondents 4,5 and 6 were appointed to those vacancies. It is also stated that their merit and suitability was assessed in the written test and in the interview conducted by the interview board. The party respondents have also filed a counter affidavit supporting the contentions raised by the company. 4. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that only the notified vacancy could have been filled up. The company or the party respondents have no case that there is any WPC.No. 22182/08 :3 : rule prevailing in the company enabling the company to fill up more than the number of notified vacancy as in the case of PSC. If that be the situation, law is settled that only notified number of vacancy can be filled up and that if any additional vacancy have arisen, separate proceedings should have been initiated. This position is settled by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar & Ors. V. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board & Ors.( AIR 1996 SC 976) and this Court in Deepthy Vijayakumar V. Joint Registrar(2008(4) KLT 321. Necessarily, therefore, in view of the specification in Ext.P1 that there was only one vacancy, appointments could not have been made to more than one vacancy. If that be so, appointments made to the additional two posts is illegal and has to be set aside. 5. From Ext.P3 what is seen is that the rank No.1 is 6th respondent who had secured total 84 marks. If that be so, certainly he alone could have been appointed to the one vacancy notified. Therefore appointments to respondents 4 and 5 to the other vacancies cannot be sustained. 6. As far as the case pleaded by the petitioner that selection process was manipulated is concerned, this contention of the WPC.No. 22182/08 :4 : petitioner is raised relying entirely on Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a consolidated statement signed by the members of the Board which conducted the selection. A reading of this document shows that although the petitioner had secured highest mark in the written test, he was given only 5 marks in the interview. In so far as respondents 4,5 and 6 are concerned, as against the 51 marks secured by the petitioner in the written test, they had secured only 39,44 and 43.5 marks respectively. As against this, it is seen that the petitioner was awarded only 5 marks in the interview and the respondents 4 to 6 were awarded 18,16.5 each respectively. This will certainly give raise to a suspicion that the selection process was manipulated. However the case of the company is that their performance was superior in the interview and therefore the marks were awarded. Although the manner in which the marks have been awarded in Ext.P3 is sufficient to create suspicion in the mind of the court, still in the absence of any conclusive evidence I do not propose to interfere with the selection process on that ground. 7. Ye another matter which needs to be noticed is that total marks secured by the 4th respondent is 74.5, where as the marks WPC.No. 22182/08 :5 : obtained by the petitioner is 80. In spite of it, he was appointed and the justification offered by the company is that this was done to maintain reservation. The rule followed by the company providing for reservation for promotion is not disclosed in the counter affidavit and there is nothing to accept this contention. The explanation offered by the company is only to justify its own illegal act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the appointments of respondents 4 and 5 will stand set aside and the company is directed to re-notify the vacancy and conduct selection process and make fresh appointments to those vacancies. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 22182/08 :6 :