IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 655 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6591/2006 Dated 06/02/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SUJA. T., H.S.S.TEACHER (MATHEMATICS), L.M.S.H.S.S. VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, L.M.S.CORPORATE MANAGEMENT (CSI), L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 4. REJITHA M.R., H.S.S.TEACHER (JUNIOR) IN MATHEMATICS, L.M.S.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R3 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R3 SRI.K.A.BALAN FOR R3 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R3 SRI.PAULSON THOMAS FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 655 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd February, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent Director of Higher Secondary Education and also Ext.P12 order of the Government, affirming the same. The appellant and the 4th respondent were appointed as H.S.S.T. (Maths) on 10.10.2000 in L.M.S. H.S.S., Vattappara and L.M.S. H.S.S., Amaravila respectively. Later, when the staff fixation order came, the post in L.M.S. H.S.S., Vattappara was sanctioned as H.S.S.T and the post in L.M.S. H.S.S., Amaravila was sanctioned as H.S.S.T. (Jr.). The result was that the appellant got approval of her appointment as H.S.S.T., whereas the 4th respondent's appointment was approved only as H.S.S.T. (Jr.). Later, the 4th respondent moved the 2nd respondent, complaining that as per the rank-list prepared by the selection committee, she was Rank No.1 and the appellant was Rank No.2. The said complaint was made in 2004. The 4th respondent WA 655/2007 2 explained the delay by contending that she came to know of the rank-list only recently. The copy of the rank-list is part of the pleadings as Ext.R4(d). 2. While the Director heard the parties, the then Manager also supported the claim of the 4th respondent. So, the Director held that the 4th respondent should be accommodated in the post of H.S.S.T. (Maths) and the appellant in the post of H.S.S.T. (Jr.). The appellant appealed and while the Government heard the appeal, the appellant submits, the original records of the selection committee were also produced, which would show that the appellant secured a total of 223 marks, whereas the 4th respondent got only 217 marks. The Government did not advert to the said documents and affirmed the decision of the Director. Therefore, the writ petition was filed, challenging Exts.P7 and P12. 3. The appellant contended that the Government have failed to advert to the relevant documents and therefore, Ext.P12 order is vitiated. The 4th respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the mark sheets produced before the Government were cooked up documents. They were produced by the present Manager, who fully supports the appellant. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, declined to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the mark WA 655/2007 3 sheets of the interview produced were real and genuine documents. Therefore, the Government should have acted upon them. At any rate, the Government should have dealt with the effect of that document, while disposing of the appellant's appeal against Ext.P7, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Manager also supported the above submission. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that those documents were not produced before the Director and they were produced only before the Government for the first time. Those documents did not inspire confidence and therefore, the Government did not act upon them. The same was the case with the learned Single Judge also, it is submitted. 6. The original mark sheets were made available for our perusal. We think, the Government should have adverted to the materials produced by the management in the form of original mark sheets. It is not in dispute that the appointments should be based on the merit of the candidates. So, the mark sheets of the selection committee are materials relevant for determining the dispute involved in this case. The erstwhile Manager, who was supporting the 4th respondent, could have cooked up Ext.R4(d). Similarly, the present Manager,who supports the appellant, may have manufactured the mark sheets. But, we feel that this is a point which the WA 655/2007 4 Government should have decided after hearing both sides. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the learned Single Judge, quash Ext.P12 and remit the appeal filed by the appellant dated 26.11.2005 (read as third document in Ext.P12) to the Government for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and respondents 3 and 4. This the Government shall do within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nm/