IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31620 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BIJU JOSEPH, DRIVER, PAINGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. PAINGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 671. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) 31620/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1 :-COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DEEPIKA DAILY ON 22.5.2011. P2 :- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY ARAKKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUBLISHED IN 2ND PAGE OF MANGALAM DAILY DTD.22.5.2011. P3 :- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTER, WHICH SHOWS THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON 19.4.2011. P4 :- COPY OF THE CRITERIA AND THE MARKS, WHICH WAS USED AS A SCALE FOR THE SELECTION. P5 :- COPY OF THE MARKS AWARDED BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTERVIEW DTD.31.5.2011. P6 :- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.8.6.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 31620 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th December, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a driver by profession has filed this writ petition complaining about the selection conducted by the second respondent for the appointment of a driver on daily wages. The petitioner had worked under the second respondent as a driver on daily wages from 2005 onwards. As per Ext.P1 notification, applications were invited, for selection and appointment as a driver on daily wages. According to the petitioner, the application was published in the newspapers dated 22-5-2011. Accordingly the petitioner submitted his application. He was also called for an interview and he participated in the selection. However, the second respondent selected one Belji Mathew. 2. According to the petitioner, no driving test was conducted and the selection was entirely based on the interview. The counsel for the petitioner also points out that the person who has been selected had submitted his application on 19-4-2011, long before Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, he submits that the selection is WPC 31620/2011 2 vitiated. He also challenges the award of marks in Ext.P5 where he has been granted zero marks for good behaviour and loyalty. 3. The petitioner is challenging the selection conducted by the second respondent for the appointment of a driver on daily wages. It is not possible for me within the limits of the summary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to examine the minute details of the selection process to ascertain whether the marks awarded to each of the candidates are on the basis of precise considerations. The petitioner is a person who has participated in the selection process and has approached this Court since he was not selected. I notice from Ext.P5 that there were six candidates for the interview and that none of them have challenged the selection process. The petitioner is aggrieved by his non- selection for the additional reason that though he had worked as a driver with the Panchayat from 2005 onwards, he has been excluded. No infirmity of a glaring nature has been pointed out by the petitioner. It is not possible for me to ascertain why the petitioner has not been awarded any marks for either good behaviour or loyalty. Such reasons are incapable of being probed by a court of law. In spite of the petitioner having worked there for five years, if the second respondent is of the opinion that his WPC 31620/2011 3 conduct and loyalty are not acceptable, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. 4. I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that he has got a right of appeal to the Deputy Director of Panchayat. It is clarified that the dismissal of this writ petition shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the selection process in appeal. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 31620/2011 4