IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18020 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SIMI AMBILY.S, W/O. AJAY KUMAR, THIRUVATHIRA, MAVELI WARD, PANMANA P.O.,CHAVARA KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM MR. TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADVOCATES MR.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R1-2 MR.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1-2 MR.UMA GOPINATH FOR R1-2 MR.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18020 of 2008(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF IDENTITY CARD DATED 6-5-1978 FOR PERSONNEL DISPLACED FROM TITANIUM PROJECT AREA. EXT.P2 - COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 28-3-2006 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 7-6-2008 FROM THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 - COPY OF LETTER DATED 12-1-89 OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5 - COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 4-8-90 OF THE INDUSTRIES (J) DEPT. EXT.P6 - COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5-11-1998 IN O.P. NO. 11933/96 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P7 - COPY OF LETTER DATED 12-2-1996 ISSUED FROM THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8 - COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27-5-2002 IN O.P. 31977/2000 & O.P. 278/01 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P9 - COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.9.2002 IN W.A. NO. 1459/02 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P10-COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.10.2007 IN W.P.(C) NO. 26763 OF 2007 OF THIS COURT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J ================== W.P(C) No. 18020 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non- consideration of her candidature for appointment in any suitable vacancies under the respondents. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to ensure that no appointment of casual workers (permanent or temporary) is made in 2nd respondent Company over looking the preferential claim of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in a nut shell is the following: 2. The 2nd respondent Company for setting up their pigment unit evicted various persons including petitioner's parents from their residential property in the year 1978. 3. Ext.P1 is the copy of the identity card issued to them by the Company. According to the petitioner, such evictees are entitled for preference in the matter of appointments in the Company. Ext.P2 evidences, the fact that the petitioner's mother had given consent letter in the name of the petitioner for giving her W.P(C) No. 18020 of 2008 -2- the benefit available to an evictee. 4. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 which is the copy of the letter No. 941501/H3/88/ID dated 12.1.1989 of the Secretary to Government, Industries (H) Department, Trivandrum to the respondents. The subject dealt with therein is Employment maintenance to the Personnel displaced from Titanium Project area. Going by Ext.P4, the selection of candidates among the preferential categories should be on the priority given therein and item one is Evictees. This is followed by Ext.P5, another circular dated 4.8.1990, wherein it has been reiterated by the Government that in the case of apprentices and special categories like evictees the Company can make recruitment directly ie, dispensing with the usual procedure of their being advised through Employment Exchange. Some of the evictees had approached this court filing O.P. NO. 2434 of 1993 and O.P. No. 11933 of 1996 seeking for preference in the matter of appointment. Those cases were disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment with a direction that “as and when vacancies arise the first respondent company shall follow the list, in accordance with the terms of Ext.P1 and other orders.” Ext.P1 therein, is Ext.P4 herein. By Ext.P7, the Government directed that W.P(C) No. 18020 of 2008 -3- appointments to posts of worker Grade II and other posts in the pigment unit shall be made by giving priority to evictees. In the year 2002, again the matter came up before this court in O.P. No. 31977 of 2000. Ext.P8 is the judgment therein. After elaborately considering the effect of Ext.P4 herein this court was pleased to hold that the directions issued in the letter of the Government dated 12.1.1989 is binding on the Company. It has been so declared by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment also in W.A. No. 1459 of 2002. By Ext.P9, the directions were reiterated, the entitlement of the petitioner for appointment was declared. 5. The Complaint raised by the petitioner is that in spite of all these binding directions, the company is not giving any preference in the matter of appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is a graduate who acquired the qualification in the year 2006. 6. In the statement filed by the respondents, the fact that there is preference in the matter of appointment is admitted. According to them, they have been following a scheme framed as early as on 24.6.1977. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit also. The 2nd respondent has produced Annexures I to V notification issued in W.P(C) No. 18020 of 2008 -4- respect of various posts. It is stated that the claim of evictees and other persons for priority while making direct recruitment is considered in accordance with the orders issued in that behalf by the State Government from time to time. 7. In the light of the facts emerging here, I am of the view that right of the petitioner for preferential treatment cannot be denied. The rights of evictees like the petitioner has been upheld by the various judgments of this court already. Then the other issue is regarding the mode of selection in the matter of appointments to be made. The petitioner's right will be for consideration for a suitable appointment in conformity with her qualification. Therefore she will have to respond to the notifications issued from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondents may be directed to publish the notification in leading newspapers in the locality. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that, that is being followed from time to time. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. 8. The right of the petitioner, for consideration for appointment being an evictee, is declared. Respondents will W.P(C) No. 18020 of 2008 -5- publish notifications which are meant for filling up of various vacancies in leading newspapers in the locality for enabling the candidates like the petitioner to respond to the same. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE rhs