IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17262 of 2011(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VENU.V., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, VADAKEKARA HOUSE, MAKKIYAD.P.O., THONDERNAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.PIN-695 001. 2. THONDERNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THONDERNAD.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-670 731. 3. THE SECRETARY, THONDERNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THONDERNAD.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-670 731. 4. THE PRESIDENT,THONDERNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THONDERNAD.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-670 731. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.17262/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 31/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATEDATED 22/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 22/6/2011 TAKEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/11/2010 IN WPC NO.33930/10 OFTHIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.17262 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a Driver under the 2nd respondent Panchayat on daily wages. The petitioner apprehends termination from service to appoint another temporary driver overlooking the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed by Ext.P1 order after conducting a selection process inviting applications from others as well. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside all further proceedings as per Exhibit P4 decision and Exhibit P5 communication. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent Panchayath to allow the petitioner to continue in service iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent Panchayath to allow the petitioner to continue in service till the regular hand is appointed in the light of Exhibit P6 judgment.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C)No.17262 of 2011 -2- as to whether the selection process undergone by the petitioner included publication of a notification inviting applications in at least one newspaper. The counsel for the petitioner admits that the publication was only in the notice board of the Panchayat and other Government offices. In several writ petitions, I have held that, that is not sufficient in so far as the drivers of the locality cannot be expected to go every day to all these Government offices to find out whether any notification inviting applications has been published. Therefore Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India would be satisfied only if the other intending applicants are also given a reasonable opportunity to apply for the post. Such a reasonable opportunity would be there only if the notification inviting applications is published at least in one newspaper. As such, I am not inclined to accept that the selection process undergone by the petitioner is a valid one. Public appointments, whether temporary or permanent shall be only after giving all persons interested in applying for the employment a reasonable opportunity to W.P.(C)No.17262 of 2011 -3- apply, failing which, that would amount to violation of the fundamental rights of those persons who are entitled to an equal opportunity to compete for such employment. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to continue in the service. But at the same time, I am of the opinion that, the Panchayat cannot also continue the old procedure for making appointments even if temporary. So I make it clear that the Panchayat can make selection and appointment of drivers whether permanent or on daily wages, or for any other post, only after publishing a notification inviting applications in at least one newspaper and conducting a selection process after considering the merits of all the applicants. It would be open to the petitioner also to apply pursuant to such notification. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/