IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1182 of 2011 ( AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.12208/2010 DATED 01-07-2011 ) APPELLANT/PETITIONER P.JANAKI, PART TIME SWEEPER PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH PALLIVASAL P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, IDUKKI DISTRICT, THODUPUZHA. 4. PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. ANIL KUMAR K.A., S/O. AYYAPPAN, KUNNATHOODY ANAVIRATTY P.O. IDUKKI. *ADDL.R6 EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, DEVICULAM, ADIMALY (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED IN THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 17.11.2011 IN I.A. 575 OF 2011 IN W.A. 1182 OF 2011/) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL R4 BY BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011 , ALONG WITH WA. 1310/2011 & WA. 1437/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st December, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: The issue involved in all these cases pertains to the selection and appointment of the appellants, as candidates sponsored from the concerned Employment Exchanges, in the posts of Part-time Sweeper, Part-time Librarian and Part-time Siren Operator in the respondent Panchyat. The appellants herein had registered their names with the concerned Employment Exchange and they were recruited to the posts in question way back in the year 1999. Subsequently, their appointments were cancelled on the basis of a complaint and as per the orders passed by the authorities under the Government, holding that the appointments were pursuant to fraud and foul play in the matter W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 2 of selection, including in sponsoring of the candidates. It was stated that persons who were ineligible to be appointed or sponsored have been given appointment, while the persons with long tenure and seniority are still waiting in the queue . When the steps were taken to put an end to the service of the selected candidates, the appellants herein approached this Court by filing petitions like OP.3347 of 2001. As per the judgment dated 17.09.2002, this Court directed the first respondent , i.e, Director of Panchayats to consider the matter and take a decision, after hearing the parties concerned. 2. In compliance with the directions as above, the matter was considered and an order was passed by the first respondent on 06.08.2002, holding that the decision already taken did not call for any interference. Challenging the said proceedings, the appellants filed petitions like O.P.No.26722 of 2002 . The 4th respondent in W.A.No. 1437 of 2011 had also filed W.P.(C) No.30835 of 2005 challenging the appointments given to the parties concerned , who are the appellants now before this Court. All the above writ petitions were heard together and a common W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 3 verdict was passed ( as borne by Ext.P7 produced in W.P.(C) No.15955 of 2010 and W.A.1437 of 2011), directing the first respondent to re-consider the matter. Pursuant to this, the first respondent reconsidered and passed Ext.P11 order, whereby the claim put forth by the appellants was rejected, which formed the subject matter of challenge in the subsequent writ petitions , i.e. W.P(C) Nos.12204 and 12208 of 2010 preferred by the appellants herein. 3 The other writ petitioner, ie., the 4th respondent as mentioned above had also preferred W.P.(C) 15955 of 2010 challenging the appointment given to the others and projecting his better claim in view of higher seniority. This writ petition was considered along with W.P.(C)Nos.12204 and 12208 of 2010 and the learned single Judge, as per the common judgment dated 01.07.2011 dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.12204 and 12208 of 2010 holding that the candidates concerned were not eligible to be sponsored or to be appointed against the vacancies in question. A positive observation was made in the said verdict W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 4 that, by virtue of better credentials of the 4th respondent, who was the petitioner in W.P.(C) 15955 of 2010 had to be sponsored and appointed. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the parties who lost the battle before the learned Single Judge have approached this Court by filing the above appeals. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier, the learned Government Pleader was required to procure necessary factual particulars and to file an affidavit by the concerned Employment Exchange Officer with regard to the vacancy position, seniority position and also as to the eligibility of the persons concerned to have had sponsored against the concerned vacancies. In furtherance to the said direction, an affidavit dated 17.12.2011 has been preferred by the Junior Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Adimaly, giving the relevant facts and figures. In the said affidavit preferred on the basis of the relevant materials, it is categorically stated that all the three appellants are not eligible for recruitment and that the appointment given earlier in a wrong and scandalous manner was already cancelled. Eligibility of the actual candidates who W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 5 deserve to be considered and appointed in respect of the three different posts have also been given in three separate lists produced as Annexures 1,II and III respectively. 5. From the contents of the affidavit and the entries in Annexures 1 to III lists, as mentioned above, it is seen that all the persons enlisted therein are persons having seniority prior to 1980, with regard to registration of their names in Employment Exchange; whereas the petitioners/appellants, particularly, the appellant in W.A.No.1182 of 2011 was having registration only w.e.f. 02.07.1984; the first appellant in W.A.No.1437 of 2011 was having registration only w.e.f. 25.06.1991 and the second appellant in W.A.No. 1437 of 2011 was having registration only w.e.f. 04.07.1986. The reason for inclusion of the last person referred to under each category in Annexures 1 -III lists is also explained in paragraph '7' of the affidavit, pointing out that such persons belong to the category of 'Physically Handicapped', whose date of seniority has to be reckoned separately from that of the others concerned. W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 6 6. There is no dispute with regard to the placement and eligibility of such persons who are liable to be considered under the relevant category, which hence is not required to be discussed in detail. The factual particulars have been given in a nut shell (in the form of a table), in paragraph '8' of the affidavit, which is beneficial to be extracted for disposal of these cases, as given below: “8. For the purpose of ready reference, the dates of registration of the senior most and junior most persons under each category in Annexures 1 to III lists in comparison to the date of registration of the Appellants in the above Appeal are tabulated hereunder: W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 7 Name of the post Date of registration and Name of the seniormost person Date of registration and Name of the juniormost person Date of registration and Name of the person in the Writ Appeal Part time Sweeper (Annexure I) Open Category 26/09/1977 Rajan K.K. SC category 07/04/1980 Chandramathy K. Open Category 27/02/1980 Murali P.. SC category 08/12/1980 Gowry P. 02/07/1984 P. Janaki. Sole appellant in WA.1182/11 Part time Librarain (Annexure II) Open Category 02/06/1975 Gracy C.A. ETB category 20/04/1977 Soman V.K. Open Category 09/09/1976 Shamsudeen P.A.. ETB category 16/10/1978 Omana P.C.. 25/06/1991 Chitra A.. Ist appellant in WA.1437//11 Part time Siren Operator (Annexure III) Open Category 24/02/1971 Mariamma P.A. Open Category 25/06/1976 Sukumaran Nair K.K. 04/07/1986 P.V. Rajendran. 2nd appellant in WA.1437//11 7. On going through the materials as above, this Court finds that the stand taken by the respondents in cancelling the appointments already given to the appellants is perfectly within W.A.Nos.1182, 1310 & 1437 OF 2011 8 the four walls of law; more so, since more eligible candidates, having better seniority, are still standing in the queue, as described in the affidavit. In the above circumstance, we find that the grounds raised by the appellants seeking for interference are ill-concerned. All the appeals fail and they are dismissed accordingly. . We make it clear that we have not dealt with any other issue, but for the date of registration and seniority in the Employment Exchange. The eligibility of the persons concerned, on the basis of Ext. P9 Government Order is also left open. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk