IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 1270 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22707/2005 Dated 06/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI. 4. DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, STATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVAN KUTTY,SC,KVIC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. K.K.ANANDAN, SHEEJA BHAVAN, THERIVILA, T.C.NO.18/382, THELIBHAGAM, KUNNAPUZHA P.O., THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (FORMERLY DAFTARY, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, STATE OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM)-PIN 695 032. 2. DEEPA PRABHA, D/O.K.K.ANANDAN, SHEEJA BHAVAN, THERIVILA, T.C.NO.18/382, THELIBHAGAM KUNNAPUZHA P.O., THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 032. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1942 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF LETTER NO.18019/7/2005-KVI-II DATED 8.12.2009 FROM THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MSME, GOI, NEW DELHI. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.A.No. 1270 of 2010 & W.A.No. 1942 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The respondents in W.P(C).Nos.22707 and 8829 of 2005 and the petitioners in R.P.Nos. 522 and 524 of 2009 are the appellants. 2. The first respondent in these Writ Appeals were the employees of the second appellant. The second respondent in these cases are the children of the first respondent. 3. The first respondent in these Writ Appeals were working under the second respondent, a Corporation constituted under Section 4 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956. While they were so working, on applications made by them, they were medically invalided from service. Subsequently, they filed applications requesting the second appellant that their children be given employment under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment of dependents formulated by the Government of India, which is adopted and followed by the WA.1270 & 1942/10 2 second appellant. The claim so made was considered and rejected. The orders rejecting the claim are produced as Exhibit P14 in WP(C).No.22707 of 2005 and Exhibit P18 in WP(C).No.8829 of 2005. These orders are similarly worded and therefore, the relevant portion of Exhibit P14 in WP(C).No.22707 of 2005 is extracted hereunder for reference. “Considering the parameters laid down by the Government and taking into account the vacancies available vis-a-vis the number of eligible applications received for compassionate appointment as on 31.12.2003 your application for compassionate appointment could not be considered.” 4. It is challenging the aforesaid orders that the respondents approached this Court by filing the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment rendered on 11th February, 2009. By the said judgment, the learned Judge issued the following directions: “9. In the light of the above provisions, the impugned Exhibits P18 and P14 respectively in both the writ petitions cannot be sustained. They are accordingly, quashed. 10. The respondents are directed to consider the claim for appointment of the petitioners in accordance with the scheme and in accordance with their qualification and eligibility and depending upon availability of suitable WA.1270 & 1942/10 3 vacancies. If these are no sufficient vacancies in the particular office, the method pointed out under sub clause (e) and (f) of Clause (7) can be adopted. Appropriate action should be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.” 5. Subsequently, the appellants herein filed R.P.Nos. 522 and 524 of 2009, seeking review of the judgment, wherein it is inter alia contended that the second appellant being an autonomous body created under the aforesaid Act, is independent of the Government of India and therefore, the direction issued in the judgment are erroneous. However, by another common order rendered on 6th August, 2009 the Review Petitions were also disposed of. Paragraph 8 of the said order reads as follows: “8. Therefore, the review petitions are disposed of in the following manner: The directions issued already will be adhered to with the following modifications. If there are no sufficient vacancies available with the review petitioners, they will forward the applications of the writ petitioners along with their recommendation to the Department of Personnnel and Training for appropriate action, so that the claim of the writ petitioners will get due consideration for appointment in other departments. Since the time limit originally fixed by this court in the judgment is over, appropriate action will be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” WA.1270 & 1942/10 4 6. It is aggrieved by the above orders, the Writ Appeals have been filed by the respondents in the Writ Petitions. 7. At the outset, we may say that as we have already stated the first respondent in these Writ Appeals were employees of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Commission. Being the employees of a statutorily constituted Corporation, their rights and liabilities are only against the second appellant. Their employer. Despite that factual position, the Union of India was impleaded in the Writ Petitions as respondent No.1, which, in our view, was totally unnecessary and as the Union of India was not a necessary party to the Writ Petitions. 8. As we have already stated above, Exhibit P14 in WP(C). No.22707 of 2005 and Exhibit P18 in WP(C).No.8829 of 2005 are the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions. A reading of these orders, relevant portion of which has been extracted above, shows that these orders were issued without any application of mind. Therefore, these orders are liable to be interfered with for that reason itself. 9. Once an order is found to be passed without any application of mind, the proper course to be adopted by this Court is to set aside the said order and require the authority concerned, WA.1270 & 1942/10 5 to pass fresh orders duly applying their mind to the provisions of law applicable and the scheme which governs the subject. Therefore, we find that it was unnecessary for this Court to have gone into the merits of the controversy. 10. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the judgment in the Writ Petitions, allow the appeals and dispose of the Writ Petitions directing that appellants 2 and 3, who are stated to be the competent authority, shall consider the applications made by the respondents herein for compassionate appointment and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs