IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1759 of 2010 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32574/2009 Dated 16/06/2010 ) .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN THE W.P. ------------------------------------ L.PAUL, S/O.LUKOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, KOLASSERIL VEEDU, ARAVILA, KAVANAD, KOLLAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P. ------------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), PWD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SECRETARIAT,RIVANDRUM. 4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOLLAM. 5. GEORGE.J., VAZHAPPALLY, KUREAPUZHA.P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM. PIN-695 012. 6. SAMSON.D., CHERUKUNNATHU, OIVILA, KOLLAM-691 590. 7. AMANULLA, HIDAYATH MANZIL, KOTTARAKKARA (VIA), CHANDANATHOPPU.P.O., KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN-695 012. 8. ASOKAN.S., SATHYA BHAVAN, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON.P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 511. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 1759 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd November, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: Selection to the post of 'Ferryman' is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. The case of the appellant/petitioner was that he was a candidate registered with the 4th respondent/Employment Exchange. Pursuant to the requisition made by the first respondent to sponsor candidates for appointment to the post of 'Ferryman', the 4th respondent sponsored the candidates including the petitioner/appellant and respondents 5 to 8. The interview was scheduled on 11.11.2009. But the appellant did not receive any intimation from the first respondent as to the date of interview. In the enquiry made by the appellant/petitioner, he was given to understand that the W.A.No. 1759 OF 2010 2 interview was already over and that a memo was also sent to him in this regard, asking him to appear for the interview scheduled on the relevant date. Though the appellant/petitioner moved the authorities by filing a representation pointing out the non-receipt of the memo, it did not turn to be fruitful and he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.32574 of 2009. 3. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that by virtue of the relevant rules, the memo of interview ought to have been sent by 'Registered Post'; whereas the respondent concerned sent the same only under 'Certificate of Posting'. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that the same was served to the appellant/petitioner and as such, he virtually lost the chance to participate in the selection process, which in turn was sought to be intercepted. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the factual position was brought to the notice of the Court, referring to the sequence of events as above and that the respondents 5 to 8 who were found eligible, were selected and appointed accordingly. But with regard to the W.A.No. 1759 OF 2010 3 satisfaction of the rule position in finalising the process of selection, the learned Single Judge observed that the course pursued by the selecting authority was alien to the statute/norms and hence was bad; however, observing that the process of selection cannot be vitiated as such, so as to set aside the appointment of the respondents 5 to 8. Since the grievance of the writ petitioner before the Court was only that he did not get a chance to participate in the process of selection, such a right was reserved and necessary directions were given to the respondents to interview the writ petitioner as well, within six weeks and to re-cast the select list based on the outcome of the interview. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the course pursued by the learned Single Judge is not correct or proper and that selection of the respondents 5 to 8 ought to have been set aside; more so when they did not choose to appear before the Court, despite the fact that notice was duly served on them. The learned Counsel also submits that though the appellant was interviewed pursuant to the judgment as aforesaid, W.A.No. 1759 OF 2010 4 there was every attempt from the part of the respondents concerned to see that the appellant/writ petitioner was eliminated somehow or other. The learned Counsel further submits that the interview ought to have been conducted by another official, than the first respondent; more so since the appellant/petitioner had occasion to cross the sword with the said official, for many a reason. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the averments/allegations are devoid of any merit. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the appellant was also called for the interview and his merit rating was done accordingly. It is stated that the interview was conducted, not by a single individual, but by a team of officials, which consisted of the first respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer and also the Assistant Engineer, who evaluated the credentials. It is further pointed out that the vacancy against which the appellant had participated in the selection, was in respect of the quota earmarked for 'Latin Catholic' and that the appellant could secure only a total of 111.5 marks, whereas the W.A.No. 1759 OF 2010 5 rival candidate by name Samson (6th respondent ) had secured 128 marks. The learned Government Pleader also made available the relevant files containing the particulars including the marks awarded to different candidates, for perusal of this Court. 7. On going through the materials on record and also the contents of the file, we find that no mischief has been committed by the respondents concerned. The contention of the appellant/petitioner that the interview ought to have been conducted by somebody else, is quite out of place and it is not for the petitioner/appellant to dictate terms to the employer, as to the manner or course of Selection including the interview. The contention of the appellant that there was malafides on the part of the first respondent also does not hold any water at all. The appellant has not chosen to implead the said authority in the personal capacity, if at all any plea of malafides was sought to be pleaded and established. Absolutely no reliable material has been brought to the notice of this Court, so as to call for interference. W.A.No. 1759 OF 2010 6 In the above facts and circumstance, this Court finds that the challenge raised by the appellant/petitioner is devoid of any merit . The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk