IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1877 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.31280/2008 Dated 10/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------- PUSHPAKARAN, ERICALI HOUSE,CHERPU WEST P.O, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION -------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, THRISSUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARATTUPUZHA 4. VILASINI D/O.VELIYATHU VELAYUDHAN, PALLISSERY,ARATTUPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS- R1 TO R3 ADV.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR -R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1877 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He submits that he was working as a casual sweeper in the Village Office, Arattupuzha from 22.12.2006, the date on which the office was inaugurated. According to the learned senior Government Pleader, the said office started functioning on 26.10.2006. That dispute has no bearing in this case. The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by his termination and appointment of the 4th respondent in his place. According to the appellant, as per paragraph 14 of Ext.P4 Government order, the head of office, the Village Officer, is entitled to make appointment of casual sweepers. The said officer, in exercise of his power, has engaged the appellant and, therefore, there is no reason to terminate him or to make a fresh selection and appoint a fresh hand. So, the Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P6 communication of the Tahsildar as per which the appellant and others were called for an W.A. NO. 1877/2009 2 interview on 18.4.2008 for selection to the post of casual sweeper in Arattupuzha Village. 2. The second respondent filed a statement in the Writ Petition stating that the Tahsildar had invited applications for the post of casual sweeper on 17.12.2007, conducted an interview on 18.4.2008 and the 4th respondent aged 47 belonging to a scheduled caste was appointed, taking note of the fact that her parents are no more and she is remaining unmarried. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit supporting her appointment and resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, took the view that the Tahsildar had made the selection and appointment in a fair and just manner and there is nothing illegal about the same. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of paragraph 14 of Ext.P4, the head of the office is competent to make appointment of casual sweeper where the sweeping area is less than 100 sq. metres. Admittedly, in this case, the sweeping area is less than 100 sq. metres. So, the proceedings of the Tahsildar inviting application for selection and appointment etc. are illegal, it is submitted. W.A. NO. 1877/2009 3 4. In this case, we notice that the appellant has been identified for appointment by the Village Officer without following any procedure. He has selected a person of the said officer's choice. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no rule or order providing for invitation of applications or selection of a candidate. But, every authority vested with a power for selection has to act fairly. Fairness in selection demands at least invitation of applications, consideration of relative merits of the applicants and selection of the best candidate. In the case of the appellant, no such procedure was followed before his appointment. But, the Tahsildar who is the superior officer has followed a fair procedure and identified the most deserving candidate among the three who appeared for the interview before him. 5. In the absence of any legal right flowing from some rule or order, the appellant cannot claim any relief from this Court. Though the appellant has raised a technical point that it is the Village Officer who has to make appointment and not the Tahsildar, we are not impressed by that contention. The Tahsildar is the superior officer and he has followed a fair procedure and appointed the most deserving candidate. In the absence of invitation of applications and selection, the appointment of the appellant can be treated only as a back door appointment. That means, it was made W.A. NO. 1877/2009 4 without giving a fair opportunity to others also to contest. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1877/2009 5 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO.1877/2009 JUDGMENT 5th January, 2010