IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30172 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VEENA C.L., CLERK, PURCHASE DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 011. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.RAMESH. C.R. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE P.O., BOX NO.2417, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 011. 2. THE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE P.O. BOX NO.2417, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 011. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4 P.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.V.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, R/A T “SHYLAJAM”, MARKET ROAD, EANIKKARA, KARAKULAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(IMPLEADED ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 12/11/2009 IN I.A.NO.14222/09 IN WPC NO.30172/2009) ADV. SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1&2 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR FO R ADDL.R4 MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30172 of 2009 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Clerk working under the 1st respondent. She aspires for appointment to the post of Office Assistant pursuant to Ext.P6, a notification inviting applications from the employees of the 1st respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, Ext.P6 is a notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications from internal candidates having qualifications mentioned therein for the post of Office Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.4,600-6,000/-. Ext.P6 is dated 17/10/2007. According to the petitioner, she made an application in response to Ext.P6 and that recruitment process was initiated and that in the meanwhile, the qualification for the post of Office Assistant was altered by Ext.P8. The petitioner apprehends that despite having invited applications by Ext.P6 and applications were received in pursuance thereof, the respondents are initiating fresh process of recruitment adopting the qualification WP(C) No.30172/2009 -2- as revised in Ext.P8. It is also argued that there is no decision of the 1st respondent to discontinue the recruitment process initiated by Ext.P6. It is with this grievance, this writ petition is filed. 3. On the directions of this Court, a statement has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that initial qualifications for the post of Office Assistant are those mentioned in Ext.P6. The respondents also accept that by Ext.P6 applications were invited. It is stated that subsequently, it was decided to revise the qualifications bringing it on a par with the qualifications prescribed by the Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences, and that accordingly, the qualifications were revised as shown in Ext.P8. 4. It is not clearly stated in the statement filed by the respondents as to whether there was any conscious decision on the part of the 1st respondent to dispense with the recruitment initiated in pursuance to Ext.P6. Therefore, by order dated 24/11/2009, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2 was directed to produce the decision that was taken by the 1st respondent not to fill up the vacancies in pursuance to Ext.P6. Accordingly, files have been produced. WP(C) No.30172/2009 -3- 5. From the files, I notice that pursuant to the directions of the Director of the 1st respondent, selection process was ordered to be initiated to fill up 50% of the vacant posts of Office Assistant, and it was in pursuance thereof that Ext.P6 was issued. They had proceeded with the matter and even a selection committee was constituted. At that stage, on the instructions of the Director, the qualifications prevailing in Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences were ascertained, and on that basis, the qualifications were revised with the approval of the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent and the Government of Kerala, as per Government Order dated 21/08/2009. It is seen that thereafter, an order has been passed on 06/10/2009 for initiating selection to 50% vacant posts of Office Assistant from the eligible internal candidates on the basis of a test, which included a test regarding knowledge in Computer Operation. The Director also passed an order on 08/10/2009 that applications may be called for from eligible candidates for internal selection. 6. Thus, on the instructions of the Director, fresh selection process following the revision in qualification is seen initiated. This WP(C) No.30172/2009 -4- shows that there was a conscious decision on the part of the 1st respondent to discontinue the recruitment initiated by Ext.P6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid order is only to initiate selection to the 50% of the vacant posts and to call for applications from eligible internal candidates, it is obvious that what is ordered is a fresh selection process in cancellation of Ext.P6. Therefore, so long as the aforesaid decision stands, this Court will not be justified in taking the view that the respondents are bound to continue the selection process pursuant to Ext.P6. If so, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. 7. It is clarified that this shall be without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner as against the decision to initiate fresh selection. 8. The petitioner also has a case that one Mr.Vijayan.S., who was recruited as a Data Entry Operator, was regularised in the post of Office Assistant. It is stated that the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment. It is also stated that the petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 to P5 representations urging this claim. Having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent has not so far WP(C) No.30172/2009 -5- taken any decision on these representations, it is directed that a decision on this behalf shall be taken by the 1st respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg