IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 25828 of 2000(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BINDU K., D/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAYIL HOUSE, (PO), MULLAMBATH, VIA KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SHEEBA , MEEKKOOTTEMMAL PO. MULLAMBATH, VIA KAKKATTIL , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. REENA, KOMANTE MOOLAYIL P.O., THIRUR, VIA KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. NISHA, KOMANTE MOOLAYIL, P.O. TIRUR, VIA KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. PRIYA, KOMANTE MOOLAYIL, P.O., THIRUR, VIA KAKKATTIL KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SINDHU, THALAPPOYIL, P.O., NARIPPATTA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. SAJILA P.O., PAYYAKKANDY, P.O., MULLAMBATH, VIA KAKKATTIL , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. SUNITHA E.P., ERULALLA PARAMBATH, P.O. MULLAMBATH,VIA KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. OP. 25828/2000 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE , CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. 4. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION , CALICUT. 5. THE INTEGRATED CHILD WELFARE PROJECT OFFICER, KUNNUMMAL, P.O., KUNNUMMAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.25828/2000 ORDER ON CMP. NO.43520/2000 IN OP. NO.25828/2000 DISMISSED 06.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN NURSERY TRAINING COURSE OF THE IST PETITIONER DT. 25.5.99. EXT.P1(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 17.4.2000 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P1(b):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 17.4.2000 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P1(c):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 17.4.2000 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(d):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 17.4.2000 OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(e):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 31.3.98 OF THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(f):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 2.6.97 OF THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(g):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DO. DO. DT. 12.6.97 OF THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTIMATION GIVEN BY the 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DT. 14.10.91. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT. 13.7.2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.(MS) NO.9/95/SWD DT. 28.2.95. EXT.R2(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER MS. NO.38/99/SWD DT. 24.9.99. EXT.R2(c):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18.12.99. EXT.R2(d):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 9.2.2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.25828 of 2000-Y. ========================= Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this Original Petition is against Exts.P4 and P5 which are the rank list and the list of persons who have got appointment as Anganwadi Workers based on Ext.P3. The petitioners are challenging the same on various grounds. It is submitted that the entire appointments were not transparent and the interview that was conducted is also without the participation of 3rd and 4th respondents. Nepotism and corruption also have been done in the recruitment. 2. Respondents 2, 4 and 5 have filed their counter affidavit disputing the correctness of the averments in the original petition. It is pointed out that petitioners 1 to 6 are included in the rank list. It is also pointed out that though the challenge is against the rank and the selection lists, none of the persons whose names figured OP.No.25828 of 2000-Y. -: 2 :- therein are made parties in this original petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequent to the filing of the original petition the first petitioner has already been appointed and petitioners 2 to 6 are awaiting appointments. It is prayed that a direction may be given to appoint other persons also. Unless the selection is vitiated by any valid grounds, this Court cannot quash the rank list and the selection list. Further the averments of the petitioners regarding the alleged illegalities in the selection procedure have been clearly disputed in their counter affidavit. It may also be pointed out that persons whose names figured in the selection list have not been made parties in the original petition. For all these reasons the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. 4. The claim of the petitioners 2 to 6 for appointment based on their ranking given in the rank list will be considered if the rank list is alive and if there are vacancies available to accommodate them. The respondents will consider the same in accordance with the ranking given in the rank list and also in OP.No.25828 of 2000-Y. -: 3 :- accordance with other principles governing appointments. As far as the petitioners 7 & 8 are concerned, as they are not included in the rank list no direction can be issued to consider their appointment. It is ordered accordingly. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-