IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 15869 of 2007(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ RAJEEV P.K., S/O.SEKHARA KURUP, RESIDING AT KOLLATHODI VEEDU, KARAD PARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, WORKING AS CLERK IN KARUMANKAVU DEVASWOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E., CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E., CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 15869/2007 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERVIEW TO THE CONCERNED CANDIDATES INVITED IN THEOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT DT. 11/4/2007 AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO WERE INVITED FOR THE ITERVIEW SHOWING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DT. 12/2/2007. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM DT. 27/4/2007. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA DT. 4/5/2007. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLICATION IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT. 12/11/2005. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DT. 5/11/2005. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN TO THE ASSOCIATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DT. 23/3/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15869 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and is currently posted in the Sree Vaira Mahakalikavu Temple under Karumakankavu Devaswom. The appointment and conditions of service of executive officers in the department is governed by the Rules framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Two of the vacancies is to be filled up by promotion from among the next lower grade of executive officers. Apparently, in the year 2007 a written test was conducted. The method of selection consisted of a written test as well as an interview. Apparently, in the case of the rank list for promotion from among the lower grade executive officers, no time limit as such was prescribed as regards the validity of the rank list. The rank list already prepared expired on 8.6.1999 and it is W.P.(C).NO.15869/07 :: 2 :: reported that 10 more candidates are remaining to be promoted as Executive Officers in the said rank list. It seems that if fresh hands are found eligible for appointment to the post of Executive Officers, they will again be included in the list. Accordingly, an interview of qualified hands was held on 5.2.2007 and 7.2.2007. The petitioner has a case that he did not receive any intimation for the interview. He could not, therefore, participate in the interview and the rank list was finalised on 7.2.2007. He sent Ext.P2 complaint by registered post on 12.2.2007. He submits that there was no response and hence he approached this court for a direction to the respondents to conduct an interview to the post of Executive Officer by inviting the petitioner for the said post. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, apart from the facts mentioned above, it is also stated that notice of the interview was sent to 84 candidates including the petitioner on 22.1.2007. None of the notices W.P.(C).NO.15869/07 :: 3 :: were returned unaccepted. 79 candidates participated in the interview. The rank list was finalised on 7.2.2007. The petitioner did not inform about the non-receipt of the notice either in person or in writing or otherwise. To the complaint which he has sent by registered post on 12.2.2007, a reply as per HR7/212/05 dated 9.4.2007 was given. It is stated that the petitioner's case will be considered when the next panel is prepared. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the senior Government Pleader. 4. Apparently, going by the method of appointment to the post of Executive Officer by promotion from among the lower grade, there is no time limit as such for the rank list. In other words, as and when vacancies arise, a fresh interview will be held and eligible candidates would be called for interview as part of the selection process. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is also stated that W.P.(C).NO.15869/07 :: 4 :: notice was sent to the petitioner for interview under certificate of posting. There was a further assertion in the counter affidavit that a reply was sent to Ext.P2, details of which have also been given. There is no rebuttal of the contention that a notice of the interview was sent and significantly, there is no mention regarding the reply to Ext.P2, which is stated to have been sent on 9.4.2007. 5. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version given by the 1st respondent. After all, notice had been sent to 84 candidates including the petitioner and 79 candidates participated in the interview. There is no reason why the petitioner alone should not have been served with a notice of the interview. I find it noteworthy that the petitioner does not deny the assertion made by the 1st respondent that a reply had been sent on 9.4.2007. There is no mention regarding this aspect either in the writ petition or in the reply affidavit. W.P.(C).NO.15869/07 :: 5 :: In the result, I do not find any justification for issuing any direction to the 1st respondent to separately interview the petitioner. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner will be considered in the next selection to be conducted for the post of Executive Officer, provided he is eligible and if there are no other factors, which disables him from such consideration. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//