IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 26638 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 51, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, MURALEE BHAVAN, THAMALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MURUGAN, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, PALAPPOORU NEAR L.P.S. VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUM & ZOO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26638 of 2007 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF 1ST PETITIONER DATED 10.7.77 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 26.6.03 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF DAUGHTER OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 7.4.06 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 12.10.06 REGARDING 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 12.10.06 REGARDING 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 6.11.06 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15.11.06 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER DATED 15.11.06 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.3.07 BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP.30644/06 DATED 22.3.07 EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 4.6.07 EXT.P12- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.7.07 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).26638/2007 ....................... Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Two vacancies of Part Time Keepers in the Department of Museum and Zoo were reported to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates. Accordingly, about 17 candidates were sponsored and they were interviewed on 4.11.2006. On conclusion of the selection, Ext.P6 order was issued by the 2nd respondent appointing the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, on the strength of Ext.P6, they reported for duty on 9.4.2006, but were asked to report on 13.11.2006 and that they were asked to report on 14.11.2006. It is stated that although they again reported before the 2nd respondent, they were not permitted to join duty. Their representations to permit them to join duty also remained unattended. Therefore, they approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).30644/2006 praying that directions be issued for them to report for duty in pursuance to Ext.P6. W.P.(C).26638/07 2 3. While the case was pending, Government issued order dated 7.2.2007 to cancel the selection and appointment of the petitioners, as, according to the Government, the selection was not held in a just and transparent manner. On receipt of the said letter, 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 intimating the petitioners of the Government Order of cancellation of their appointment. When Ext.P9 was brought to the notice of this Court, W.P.(C).30644/06 was disposed of by Ext.P10 order holding that such an order could have been passed only in compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to make their representations in the matter. Accordingly the case was disposed of directing that Ext.P9 be kept in abeyance till a fresh decision is taken in the matter affording an opportunity to the petitioners. 4. Petitioners submit that in pursuance to the directions in the judgment, they were called by the 1st respondent for a personal hearing and they submitted Ext.P11 request to summon the members of the selection committee which selected them, in order to ascertain the criteria adopted in the matter of selection. W.P.(C).26638/07 3 By that time, Government issued Ext.P12 order holding that the selection process was not transparent and therefore, the selection cannot be upheld. It is stated that on that basis, Ext.P11 request made by the petitioners was also rejected. It is on receipt of Ext.P12, this writ petition is filed challenging the said order and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to join duty. 5. The reason stated by the Government for cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioners is that the selection process was not transparent and that no evidence was made available to show that the selection was done in a fair and transparent manner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit there is absolutely no explanation as to in what manner the selection process held on 4.11.2006 was vitiated. On the other hand, it is stated that Ext.P6 order dated 6.11.2006 was delivered to the 2nd petitioner by postal authorities only on 9.11.2006 and if that be so, he being a resident of about 15 Kms W.P.(C).26638/07 4 from the office of the 2nd respondent, could not have reported for duty at 10.00 am on 9.11.2006 itself. It is stated that this shows that they were anticipating selection and the hurry shown by the petitioners to report for duty show that the selection and their appointment was the outcome of the collusion between the petitioners and the members of the selection Committee. 7. As already seen, the reason stated in Ext.P12 order is that the selection was not conducted in a transparent manner. Neither in Ext.P12 nor in the counter affidavit, is there any explanation as to how and in what respect the selection is so transparent or unfair. Even if it is assumed that Ext.P6 order was delivered to the petitioners only on 9.11.2006 in the morning and assuming that there was a hurry on their part to report for duty, that will not govern to vitiate the selection process which was already held. Even otherwise the hurry on the part of an unemployed person to join duty itself is not a reason to conclude that the selection process itself was vitiated. 8. In the absence of any explanation in Ext.P12, about the W.P.(C).26638/07 5 manner in which the selection process is vitiated and as that aspect of the matter is not explained in the counter affidavit, I cannot uphold Ext.P12. Ext.P12 is therefore set aside. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to join duty in the post of Part Time Keepers in pursuance to Ext.P6. Writ petition is allowed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs