IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 21912 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ALICE THOMAS, HELPER (AYAH), MODEL NURSERY SCHOOL, PARAMBA.P.O, PARAPPA (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEPARTMEN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE, KASARAGOD. 3. WEST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BHEEMANADI P.O, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE- EDUCATION, WEST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BHEEMANADI.P.O. 5. NIRMALA.K.P, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHAPPAYIL HOUSE, PARAMBA.P.O, (VIA) PARAPPA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILEEP MOHAN R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.21913 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 21912 & 21913 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T These two writ petitions are filed by two ladies who applied for the post of Teacher and Ayah at Model Nursery School, Paramba, Kasaragod District, which is under the 3rd respondent-West Eleri Grama Panchayat. The petitioners and the 5th respondent respectively in each of the writ petitions were former Teacher and Ayah. They submit that the Nursery School was originally a Balavady under the Harijan Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala. According to the petitioners, other similarly placed Teachers and Ayahs had approached this Court and obtained a judgment in W.P(C) No. 21854/2006 for regularisation of their services. This particular Nursery School was handed over to the 3rd respondent-Panchayat for continued operation. The 3rd respondent invited applications for appointment of Teacher and Ayah. The petitioners applied for the same. They were not selected. The respective 5th respondent in the two writ petitions were selected. The petitioners are challenging that selection in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners are primarily challenging the selection on the ground that the selection committee constituted by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of interviewing the candidates was not one contemplated by Ext. R3(a) Government Order, which governs the operation of the projects handed over to the local authorities. The petitioners would contend that as per Ext. R3(a) Government Order, an interview has to be conducted by a selection committee consisting of three persons, namely, (1) Panchayat President/Municipal Chairman/Corporation Mayor, (2) Ward Member of the Ward where the Nursery School is situated and (3) the Block Extension Officer (SC) or Taluk SC Development Officer of the Block/Taluk where the area consisting of the Panchayat/Municipality/ Corporation is W.P.C. Nos. 21912 & 21913/08 -: 2 :- included. The contention taken is that as is revealed by Ext. R3(b) proceedings, the selection committee did not include the Block Extension Officer (SC) or the Scheduled Caste Development Officer. According to the petitioners, the selection is vitiated for that reason. 3. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit are filed by the 3rd respondent. They now raise several contentions. First is that the selection was conducted validly and properly. In the selection, the respective 5th respondent scored higher marks than the petitioners and therefore they were selected. The second contention is that the appointment of Teacher and Ayah is on contract basis from year to year. Every year, fresh selection is made and the person selected is appointed as Teacher and Ayah for the relevant year only. In this case, according to the 3rd respondent, the selection for the academic year 2008-2009 is already over. They would submit that for the year 2009-2010, another selection was conducted and a Teacher and Ayah were appointed. The petitioners did not apply for that selection and therefore there is no point in now considering the writ petition on merits. Thirdly, they would contend that after having participated in the selection process, the petitioners cannot turn around and challenge the selection proceedings themselves. The 3rd respondent relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others, (1997) 4 SCC 426, Union of India & others v. S. Vinodh Kumar & others, (2007) 8 SCC 100 and Sadananda Halo & Others v. Momtazali Sheikh & Others, (2008) 4 SCC 619. Regarding the contention that the 3rd officer stipulated in Ext. R3(a) was not included as a member of the selection committee, they have an explanation for the same. Relying on Ext. R3(e), they would contend that the concerned Scheduled Caste Development Officer was apprised in the matter for participating in the interview and he did not turn up. It is under W.P.C. Nos. 21912 & 21913/08 -: 3 :- the above circumstances that the selection was completed and an interview with the Welfare Standing Committee Chairman instead of the 3rd officer stipulated was conducted. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am also of opinion that there is no point in now considering the writ petition on merits. Even if the contention of the petitioners that the selection committee was not properly constituted is accepted, the selection is from year to year on contract basis. Admittedly, the petitioners did not apply for the next year. Further, there is no specific averment in the writ petition that the constitution of the selection committee was bad for non-inclusion of the Scheduled Caste Development Officer or the Block Extension Officer (SC). There is only a general averment in the writ petition that the interview board consisted of ineligible, unqualified, incompetent and biased persons and there is no a averment as to how any of the member is ineligible, unqualified, incompetent and biased. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the writ petitions on merits. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to see that if the petitioners apply for next year, their candidature would be duly considered in accordance with law. It is also specifically directed that the 3rd respondent shall constitute the selection committee strictly in accordance with Ext. R3(a) Government Order. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/