IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1693 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4527/2010 Dated 02/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SHEEJA KUMARI G.S. , GEETHA BHAVAN, VAKERI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673 008. 3. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. SUNILA P. THZHATHEPURACKAL, THEKKUMURI P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 101. 6. PREMA C, NEELIKATTU HOUSE, KKODAKKAD P.O., CHETTUPADI, MALAPPURAM-676 505. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.D. BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1693 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Selection to the post of 'Hospital Attender Grade II' is the subject matter of dispute. 2. Pursuant to the requisition made by the 2nd respondent to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of eligible candidates, the appellant and several other candidates were sponsored and a selection was conducted. As per the norms of selection, marks were to be awarded under various traits/heads such as, being a widow, experience, education, seniority of registration before the Employment Exchange etc. 3. On culmination of the process of selection, the appellant was awarded 31.5 marks, whereas the respondents 5 and 6 were awarded 34 marks who in turn were selected along with other selected candidates and given appointment. Denial of appointment to the appellant was subjected to challenge by filing Writ Petition stating that, despite satisfying the credentials, W.A. No. 1693 of 2011 -:2:- particularly in the field of experience and such other relevant aspects, no proper marks were awarded to the appellant/petitioner, whereas undue advantage was extended to the respondents 5 and 6 giving preference in the matter of employment, which hence was sought to be intercepted. 4. Detailed counter affidavit was filed from the part of the 4th respondent pointing out that, the process of selection was very much transparent and that the credentials of each and every candidate were analysed and appreciated with maximum precision. The fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was a 'widow' was also properly evaluated and the allocable extent of '5' marks was given under that head, besides the marks awarded for seniority, educational qualification, personal interview etc. It is however conceded that, no marks were awarded to the writ petitioner under the head 'work experience' for the fact that she did not have any such reckonable experience in the Health Department or Medical Education Department in terms of G.O.No.35186/F2/05/H&FWD dated 05.12.2006. 5. After considering the facts and figures, the learned Single Judge observed that, from the particular category to which W.A. No. 1693 of 2011 -:3:- the writ petitioner belongs(ETB category), only 7 candidates could be appointed out of the total number of 299 candidates appeared for the interview in that category. All the 7 persons scored marks much above the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was having no work experience in the 'Health Department' or 'Medical Education Department'; which alone would yield to have additional marks for experience, as observed in paragraph 5 of the judgment. It is also observed that respondents 5 and 6 had experience in Government Departments through Employment Exchange engagement on temporary basis and that all the candidates included in the ETB priority list in which the writ petitioner was included were equally qualified and were eligible to be considered and included in the list. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the said verdict that, altogether 182 candidates under the ETB priority quota secured more marks than the writ petitioner. 6. The work experience in respect of the appellant/petitioner is sought to be traced to Ext.P4, in respect of her involvement in the 'Kudumbasree Project' of the concerned Panchayat. Admittedly, the same is not under the 'Health W.A. No. 1693 of 2011 -:4:- Department' or 'Medical Education Department' and there is no such case even for the appellant. There is also no dispute with regard to the contents of the Government Order dated 05.12.2006, which stipulates allocation of marks in respect of work experience. This being the position, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 8 of the verdict that marks could be allotted to the deserving candidates only in terms of of the said Government Order does not call for any interference. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an apparent contradiction in the counter affidavit filed by 4th respondent, wherein it has been stated by them in paragraph 5 that the respondents 5 and 6 were included in the list for the reason that they were having work experience in the Government Department through Employment Exchange on temporary basis. It is not discernible from the materials on record as to the particulars of engagement of the said respondents and the Department in which they were serving. However, going by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 8, it is seen that the respondents 5 and 6 have not been awarded any W.A. No. 1693 of 2011 -:5:- marks under any other special category and that none of them has been awarded any marks for experience (as observed in the last two sentences of paragraph 8). That apart, the factual position that there are nearly 182 candidates under the ETB priority quota who have secured more marks than the appellant/petitioner, also stands not rebutted. This being the position, the insinuation made by the appellant is rather unfounded; more so when no reliable material has been produced before this Court, so as to arrive at any positive finding in favour of the appellant. We hold that the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is within the four walls of law and the same does not call for any interference. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb