IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 19165 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.GOPAKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PANIKER, NOW WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY HOUSING, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. B.S.GIREESHAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA HOUSING BOARD, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHAJI VARGHESE, 1ST GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, CHANGANASSERY BRANCH. 6. A.T.DILEEP KUMAR, 1ST GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ============================== WRIT PETITION NO.19165 OF 2007 ============================== Dated this the 31st day of January 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as an Upper Division Clerk in the second respondent Housing Board. He challenges Ext.P5 order, by which respondents 4 to 6 were appointed as Senior Computer Programmers in the Housing Board. 2. The special rules applicable to the Housing Board establishment - Ext.P2 contemplates a Computer System Wing in the engineering branch of the Housing Board establishment. The qualification prescribed for the post of Senior Programmer is as follows: Senior Programmer 1. By transfer from any service of KSHB. 2. In the absence of suitable candidates, under item (1) above, by deputation/direct recruitment. 1.Must be a graduate in Computer Engineering/ Technology or 2. Must be a Graduate with PGDCA/MCA. 3. It is therefore clear that the post of Senior Programmer is W.P.(C)19165/2007 2 considered to be a selection post. The special rules is silent as to the manner in which the selection is to be conducted for the purpose of effecting appointment to the post of Senior Programmer. Petitioner, therefore, contends that selection should have been made on the basis of the seniority of the persons who are otherwise eligible to apply for the post. 4. Apparently, the second respondent, at its meeting held on 28.2.2006, decided to invite applications for selecting candidates to the post of Senior Programmer. It was also decided to conduct interview/suitability test for selecting suitable persons. Accordingly, six persons applied and all of them were called for an interview. Five of them attended the interview, including the petitioner. The interview Board consisted of the Technical Director of the National Institute of Computers and the Additional Secretary of the Kerala State Housing Board. The interview was held on 29.3.2007. Marks were awarded out of 100, in the following criteria adopted by the interview board. W.P.(C)19165/2007 3 Maximum Marks Qualification 50 Experience 10 Aptitude 10 Presentation Skill 10 Service Weightage 10 Interview performance 10 Total 100 5. On the conclusion of the interview, the committee ranked the persons in the order of merit depending upon the marks scored by the candidates. Respondents 4 to 6 herein scored marks higher to the petitioner and therefore they were appointed as per Ext.P5 order. As noted above, Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Board inter alia referring to the aforementioned facts. It is also stated that the interview was conducted to select eligible W.P.(C)19165/2007 4 candidates as the post needs practical knowledge in computers. The candidates were selected on the basis of merit. Petitioner did not raise any objection about the interview at any point of time. Selection was made not on the basis of seniority, but on the basis of merit. Selection is to be upheld, it is contended by the Housing Board. Counter affidavits have been filed by the contesting respondents also. 7. This court had, by Order dated 28.6.2007, required the third respondent to produce the files leading to Ext.P5. Accordingly, files were produced before me and I have perused the same. 8. Going by the special rules, it is seen that there is no specific feeder category for appointment by transfer to the post of Senior Programmer. Obviously, this would mean that there cannot be inter se seniority among the applicants. Length of service is not shown as the criteria, per se, for the purpose of appointment to the post of Senior W.P.(C)19165/2007 5 Programmer. It is true that the special rules do not specifically provide for interview as a specified method of selection, but it should also be noted that the rules are silent and therefore it was always open to the higher decision making body, namely, the Board of Directors, to conduct the selection by an interview. It seems that there was an expert from outside, namely, the Technical Director of National Institute of computers along with the Additional Secretary of the Kerala State Housing Board as the Interview Board. The criterion adopted for assessing the merit of the candidates cannot be considered as arbitrary and unreasonable. Sufficient weightage has been given for the qualification of the candidates. Allocation of marks for the purpose of the interview by itself does not seem to have had any overwhelming effect or impact on the assessment of merit. I am not in a position to find any illegality or irregularity in the selection procedure. 9. As rightly contended by the counsel for the third W.P.(C)19165/2007 6 respondent, petitioner participated in the interview without demur. Interview was held on 29.3.2007. There was a considerable lapse of time after the interview and before the issuance of Ext.P5, which was issued only on 4.6.2007. No objection was raised by the petitioner as to the conduct of interview, at any time, after the interview and before Ext.P5. There are no allegations of mala fides against the members of the interview board or the persons who attended the interview. 10. In the result, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the selection process and consequentially with Ext.P5. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)19165/2007 7 V.GIRI, JUDGE css/