IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37626 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJESH.P., S/O. KELAPPAN P.P. POYIL HOUSE , VARIKKOLI POST, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.SASINDRAN, MR.M.V.BIPIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY, STATE PROGRAMME MONITORING AND SUPPORT UNIT, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY, STATE PROGRAMME MONITORING AND SUPPORT UNIT, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN, ADV. MR.M.AJAY, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37626/2008-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 29/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DTD. 17/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED FOR APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO EXT.P.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 05/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.37626/2008- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P4 and P5 and for a direction to the respondents to publish the select list of 15 candidates pursuant to the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1. 2. The post in question is Junior Consultant (Documentation and Communication). The notification was published on 29/10/2008. The qualification prescribed for the post as per the notification is P.G Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism or Social Work/Public Releation/Public Health and five years experience in Development Sector of which three years in documentation preferably in Health Sector. Since the petitioner possesses the above qualification, he applied for the same pursuant to the notification and was called for written test and interview. It is pointed out by the petitioner that in the written test and interview, several candidates who have not completed four years experience were allowed to participate. Ultimately, a list of nine candidates were published which is evidenced by Ext.P4. The petitioner submits that at a later point of time by Ext.P5 a fresh notification is seen to be issued which according to him is W.P.(C) No.37626/2008 -:2:- absolutely illegal. It is also pointed out that the list published as per Ext.P4 is also arbitrary. 3. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has filed a statement. It is pointed out in the statement that the first respondent entrusted the selection of the Junior Consultants (Documentation and Communication) to a Selection Board consisting of four members mentioned in para (2) of the statement. The selection Board decided various parameters to assess the candidates, by conducting a written test, computer test and presentation skills and interview and the details regarding distribution of marks are shown in the statement. Out of 66 candidates who had submitted applications for consideration, only 27 claimed experience of five years or more. Therefore, there were only 27 eligible candidates for the 15 available vacancies and, hence, the Selection Board decided to invite all candidates who possessed the required qualification but who had 3 years experience or more to participate in the selection process subject to ratification by the first respondent. Therefore, the Selection Board sent notices to all the 37 candidates who qualified for the selection process inviting them for the written test and interview. Out of the 37 candidates invited only 28 candidates appeared for the selection process on 21/11/2008 and 22/11/2008. They were ranked on the basis of written test, computer and presentation based and the interview conducted. W.P.(C) No.37626/2008 -:3:- The interview Board decided to recommend all those candidates who obtained an aggregate score of 50 or above. Thus, a list of 12 candidates was prepared and submitted to the State Mission Director, the first respondent for approval. Out of the 12 candidates nine had five years of prescribed experience and three had only between 3 and 5 years of experience. The first respondent after considering the same rejected it stating that it is improper to include candidates who were not declared eligible according the public notice issued by NRHM, Kerala. Relaxation of eligibility criteria cannot be done without another public notice prior to the selection. Therefore, the first respondent directed that only those candidates who had both the educational qualification and the required experience of five years can be selected and appointed and, therefore, revised select list of only nine fully qualified candidates was published. Thereafter, the first respondent ordered a fresh selection process to be conducted by reducing the experience prescribed from five years to three years and experience in the Development Sector from three years to 2 years which was notified as per Ext.P5. This was notified since there would no be no complaints from any quarters that the standards have been lowered midway during the selection process. It is therefore, contended that there was no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the issuance of Ext.P5. W.P.(C) No.37626/2008 -:4:- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a change in the qualification prescribed as per the earlier notification, which is illegal. 5. Going by the explanation offered by the respondents it is found that they did not get sufficient candidates at that point of time. Since the appointment was to be made for 15 vacancies and the eligible candidates were only 27, they did not get atleast a minimum number of candidates of twice the vacancies. It is in that view of the matter they had to relax the experience qualification from five years to three years. It cannot be said that the action take by them is arbitrary since they wanted to conduct only a proper selection by including more number of candidates. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is pointed out by the respondents that the written test and interview of candidates notified as per Ext.P5 was conducted on 29/12/2008 and 30/12/2008 respectively and a select list has been published on 03/01/2009 and the selection process has been completed also. In the light of the above, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms