IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23527 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.SUMA, U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. S.JALAJA, JALAJA BHAVAN, T.C.47/979, RAMACHAMVILA, KARAMANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. 6. ANITA S.LIN, T.C.49/2525, TRA-137, THAMALAM, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012. 7. SHIMNA V.S., SANTHA NIVAS, PUNNAMOOD, KALLIYOOR-695 042. 8. S.JEEJA, 'SWARAGE', T.C.5/1861, NADAKKAVU LANE, PEROORKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. WPC NO.23527/2010 -2- 9. K.LAKSHMI, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, ONAMTHURUTH.P.O., KAIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 602. 10. LINCY.A.K., CHAITHRAM HOUSE, MANGAD.P.O., UNNIKULAMAYA, KOZHIKODE-673 574. 11. SREELATHA R.S., SREENILAYA, SANGEETHA NAGAR, PANGAPPARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. 12. T.R.SHEELA KUMARI, ANUGRAH, KODUVAZHANNUR.P.O., PULIMATH VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 612. 13. THAHIRABEEVI.H., T.C.52/58 (2), KATTAKATH, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020. 14. TESSY ABRAHAM, W/O.JESTINE K.J. MASTER, SAINIK SCHOOL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 585. 15. SUNITHA.M.V, GOURESAM, T.C.50/780 (5), DEVINAGAR, KALADY, KARAMANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. 16. PAULIN JOSE, THEKKEDATH, ARPOOKKARA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002. 17. SUSEELA.K., VARICKEMICKAL HOUSE, PLASSAMAL.P.O., THALAPPALAM, KOTTAYAM-686 579. 18. SULAJA.P., 1/217 JNEO APARTMENT, BYPASS ROAD, WESTHILL, CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE-673 005. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R7,10,13,14&18 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN FOR R7,10,13,14 &18 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23527/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO DT 2.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF WOMEN PROTECTION OFFICERS PUBLISHED BY THE IMG. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 3.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 6.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF WOMEN PROTECTION OFFICERS PUBLISHED BY THE I.M.G. EXTS. OF R13 EXT.R13(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 18.12.2008. EXT.R13(b): TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT NIL. EXT.R13(c): TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN KERALA KAUMUDHI DT 3.3.2009. EXT.R13(d): TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT 17.3.2009. EXT.R13(e): TRUE COPY OF PARAGRAPH 14 DT 8.12.2009 OF THE NOTE FILE. EXT.R13(f): TRUE COPY OF LIST MADE CONSISTING OF 21 PERSONS ON THE BASIS OF MERIT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23527 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P5 and direction to respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the post of Women Protection Officers created vide Ext.P1 order by recruitment by transfer through PSC, is also sought for. 2. Ext.P1 is the Government Order creating 14 posts of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department. The method of appointment is “through PSC/by transfer appointment” and the Appointing Authority is the Director of Social Welfare Department. In pursuance to Ext.P1, Ext.R13(a) letter was issued by the Appointing Authority to the Government stating that the Rules permit by transfer appointment otherwise than through PSC and seeking permission for the constitution of the Selection/Interview Committee to take further action to make appointments to the posts. 3. It is seen that approval was granted, based on which Ext.R13(b), (c) and (d) notifications were issued inviting applications for the post. In response to the notifications, among WPC No. 23527/10 :2 : others, petitioner and the party respondents applied. Selection process was conducted by the Institute of Management in Government and Ext.P2 is the short list, where the petitioner and the party respondents are also included. Shortlisted candidates were subjected to an interview and call letters of which are Exts.P3 and P4. Final result of the test and interview conducted by the IMG was published by Ext.P5, a full text of which is Ext.R13 (f). On the premise that the petitioner is not included in Ext.P5, this writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. On the other hand, from Ext.R13(f) produced by the party respondents, it is seen that the petitioner has been included at Sl.No.21 of the final list. 4. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, going by Ext.P1, the method of appointment is “through PSC/by transfer appointment”, and therefore, by transfer appointment can only be through PSC. The stand taken by the party respondents is that by transfer appointment is not through PSC, and therefore, the process adopted is perfectly illegal. It is also their contention that the petitioner having responded to the vacancy notification and after taking her chance in the selection WPC No. 23527/10 :3 : process, cannot now be permitted to challenge the process adopted by the Appointing Authority. 5. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that the post of Women Protection Officer is not covered by the Special Rules, and that, by transfer appointment therefore can be made otherwise than through PSC. 6. Ext.P1 is the Government Order creating the post. The method of appointment is “through PSC/by transfer appointment”. Although clarity is lacking in Ext.P1, still, as already noticed, Ext.R13(a) is the letter issued by the Appointing Authority to the Secretary to the Government, who issued Ext.P1. In Ext.R13(a), the Appointing Authority mentioned that by transfer appointment is possible directly and not through PSC and it is on that basis, permission of the 1st respondent was sought for the constitution of the Selection/Interview Committee. This proposal made by the Appointing Authority was considered by the Government. It is on that basis, selection process was initiated. This obviously means that the interpretation given by the Appointing Authority, which is also now endorsed by the learned Government Pleader, was accepted by the Government, and it is on that basis, the selection WPC No. 23527/10 :4 : process was initiated and completed. Therefore, in the light of the above, I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the process of selection could have been only through PSC. 7. Even otherwise, facts show that it was pursuant to the above, the posts were notified by Ext.R13(b), (c) and (d) and the petitioner responded to the notification, appeared in the test and interview and filed this writ petition only thereafter. In my view, the principle of estoppel applies and the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the proceedings. 8. Learned Counsel relied on Rule 3 of Part II KS & SSR and contended that the recruitment could have been only through PSC. A reading of the writ petition shows that such a ground has not been raised. In the absence of pleadings, I am not persuaded to consider this contention now urged. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp