IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4527 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEJA KUMARI G.S.,GEETHA BHAVAN, VAKERI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE 3. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DISTRICT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUNILA P., THAZHATHEPURACKAL, THEKKUMURI P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 6. PREMA C.,NEELIKKATTU HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O., CHETTIPADI, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU FOR R5&6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1TO4 SMT. NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIXC EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW MEMO DT.16.9.2008 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUE DBY POOTHADI GRAMA PANCAYAT DT.4.2.2009 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF DO. EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF DO. EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 24344/2009 EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.10.2009 EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF DO. DATED 7.12.2009 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R6(A)-TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION LETTER DT.16.9.2008 EXT.R6(B)-TRUE COPY OF DO. DATED DO. EXT.R6(C)-TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009 EXT.R6(D)- DO. DO. EXT.R6(E)- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.4.2010 EXT.R6(F)-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.1.2011 OF R2 EXT.R6(G)-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.5.2011 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4527 of 2010-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a candidate sponsored through the Employment Exchange, having failed to get appointment as Hospital Attender Grade II is challenging the various proceedings including the appointment of respondents 5 and 6. The main complaint is regarding the manner of award of marks. 2. The petitioner is a divorcee having two tender aged children. Her qualification is SSLC. She had registered her name with the third respondent Employment Exchange. Ext.P1 is the copy of the communication from the second respondent directing her to appear for the interview for appointment to the post of Hospital Attender Grade II. The petitioner produced various certificates including Exts.P2 to P4. She claimed experience based on Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Kudumbasree Unit of Poothadi Grama Panchayat stating that she was functioning as a volunteer in health care. Ext.P5 is the complaint raised by the petitioner against her non selection and thereafter Exts.P6 and P7 representations were submitted before the Government and the Director of wpc 4527/2010 2 Medical Education. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment of this Court directing the representation of the petitioner to be considered, Exts.P9 and P10 communications were issued by the Principal of the Medical College as well as by the Director of Medical Education, rejecting her complaint. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a widow, was entitled for award of five marks. In the case of the petitioner only 3.5 marks were awarded in the interview, whereas the other candidates were given high marks. It is submitted that respondent 5 and 6 got 34 marks each and the petitioner was granted 31.5 marks. This was deliberately done to avoid her selection. Respondents 5 and 6 had no work experience, but even then they were selected, whereas the petitioner was having experience for which no marks were awarded. Accordingly, it is contended that no fair and proper selection was conducted and the respondents have made the selection in accordance with their choice of the candidates. Thus, the main grievance raised is with regard to the award of 3.5 marks only for interview and non consideration of the experience. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent Director of wpc 4527/2010 3 Medical Education reveals the following facts: Large number of posts of Hospital Attender Grade II were vacant in Medical College Hospitals. The Government authorised the Principals to take necessary action to fill up the vacancies of Hospital Attender Grade II and other posts through Employment Exchange, as per the procedures in the Special Rules of Last Grade Servants and as per the norms contained in the Circular No.35186/F2/05/H & FWD dated 5.12.2006. In accordance with the same, the Principal of Medical College, Kozhikode reported 120 posts of Hospital Attender Grade II, out of the vacant 240 posts for appointment from the common seniority list of part time sweepers as per the rules. The Employment Officer, Kozhikode forwarded a list of 5698 candidates from all employment exchanges in Kerala which consisted of separate lists for reservation categories such as OBC, ETB, Muslim, SC, ST, etc. Pursuant to the memos issued, 3261 candidates appeared. The special categories such as widows, unmarried and destitute and physically handicapped persons have been given additional marks. Out of the above, 120 candidates have been selected for appointment. From among the 120 candidates selected, 25 are widows, 16 are unmarried, 8 are physically handicapped and 4 are other destitutes and caste-wise representation was wpc 4527/2010 4 also maintained strictly in accordance with rules. 5. With regard to the award of marks and the complaint raised by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition, it is explained that the petitioner was a candidate coming under the category of ETB priority. Only 7 candidates could be appointed out of the total number of 299 candidates appeared for the interview under ETB priority. Petitioner obtained 31.5 marks (age - 8 + seniority - 10 + widow - 5 + qualification - 5 + interview - 3 ½ .) Under the above category 7 candidates who got highest marks were selected and appointed. Petitioner is having no work experience under Health Department or Medical Education Department which deserves additional marks for experience. 6. As regards the award of marks, it is explained that there are norms to give marks under different heads and the certificate Ext.P4 was not considered, as the same was not sufficient. Respondents 5 and 6 had experience in the Government departments through Employment Exchange on temporary basis. All the 509 candidates included in the ETB priority list in which the petitioner was also included, are equally qualified and eligible to be included in the list. It is further explained that the petitioner obtained 31.5 marks and respondents 5 and 6 have obtained 34 marks. No excess wpc 4527/2010 5 marks have been given to those persons to be selected. 182 candidates under the ETB priority quota secured more marks than the petitioner. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6 also, they have also explained various aspects concerning them. 8. The crucial question therefore is whether the experience gained by the petitioner in the Kundumbasree unit could be recognised. Evidently, for experience 10 marks could be awarded. Learned Govt. Pleader placed before me for perusal the relevant Government Order, viz. G.O.No.35186/F2/05/ H&FWD dated 5.12.2006 referred to in the counter affidavit, wherein the norms have been prescribed. Going by the same, what is specified as experience is the one in the Health Department for which 10 marks have been assigned. Hence, Ext.P4 will not help the petitioner to get marks for experience. The total marks for interview is 10 and for widows/physically handicapped/dependents of Jawan, five marks could be awarded. Five marks are provided for academic qualifications. For age also 10 marks are provided and for employment registration seniority 10 marks are provided. Herein, a comparison of the marks obtained by the seven candidates selected from the ETB priority and the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P10, shows that all the seven candidates wpc 4527/2010 6 obtained 34 marks. The petitioner was awarded five marks since she is a widow. Respondents 5 and 6 were awarded 9 marks for the interview and the marks in respect of the other candidates also varies under different heads. But respondents 5 and 6 have not been awarded any marks under any other special category. For experience none of them have been awarded any marks. 9. The relevant files showing the award of marks in respect of these candidates, was produced by the learned Govt. Pleader. ETB priority category included 509 candidates from serial No.1467 to 1975. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that marks were deliberately reduced at the time of interview, there is no reliable material to show that any foul play was made to discard the candidature of the petitioner. There was an interview committee which was handling the matter. As evident from the plea made in the counter affidavit, 182 candidates under the ETB priority secured more marks than the petitioner. It is not as if respondents 5 and 6 were selected by denying the selection to the petitioner. In between them 180 candidates are there. There is nothing to show that excess marks have been granted to any of the candidates. 10. In fact, respondents 5 and 6 in their counter affidavit points out wpc 4527/2010 7 that after Ext.R6(c) and (d) appointment orders were issued, they joined duty as Hospital Attender Grade II. Their services have been regularised as per order dated 20.4.2010 issued by the Principal (Ext.R6(e). They have completed the period of probation and have been provisionally promoted as Hospital Attender Grade I by Ext.R6(g) order. It is also averred by them that the petitioner has no preferential right. The fifth respondent is aged 39 and the petitioner is aged 37. They have also denied any allegation of on compliance with the procedure regarding the award of marks. 11. Evidently, therefore, the question is whether the selection procedure is tainted or not. It cannot be said that the award of marks is not in terms of the norms prescribed. Merely because the petitioner was only granted 3.5 marks out of 10 for interview, it cannot be presumed that the marks were reduced deliberately to deny appointment to the petitioner, especially since it is pointed out that there are 182 candidates under the ETB priority quota who secured more marks than the petitioner. The total number of candidates were above 5000 and the total number of candidates interviewed itself stood at 3261. Seven candidates who got highest marks under the ETB priority quota, were included in the list for appointment. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner are not really substantiated. wpc 4527/2010 8 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a further plea that the petitioner may be directed to be appointed as this is the last chance for her. But, since so many other candidates were there in between, this Court will not be justified in issuing such a direction. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no invalidity in the selection process. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/