IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1722 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24752/2010 Dated 06/08/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR,S/O.RAVEENDRAN,AGED 32 YEARS,RESIDING AT MADAMPALLYTHARAYIL,KOLAM, PANMANA,CHAVARA.PO,KOLLAM. 2. PRADEEP.R,S/O.RAGHAVAN,AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAYYIL VEEDU,NADUVATHUCHERRY,PANMANA PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O,CHAVARA,KOLLAM. 3. D.SIVAPRASAD,S/O.DIMAR SINGH,AGED 41 YRS RESIDING T SINDHU BHAVANAM,KULANGARABHAGOM, CHAVARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD,CHAVARA, KOLLAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD,CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD,CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691583. WA.No. 1722 of 2010 5. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD,CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI. B.S. KRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1722 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 06.08.10 in W.P.(C) No.24752 of 2010, the unsuccessful petitioners preferred the appeal. 2. Large extents of property in Kollam District were acquired by the 1st respondent State for the benefit of the 3rd respondent herein for the establishment of a certain project (the further details of the project may not be necessary for the present purpose). The 1st respondent issued an order, G.O(Rt) No.11/88/ID dated 01.01.1988 stating that some preference would be given to the various categories of persons specified in the said Government Order in the matter of selection to the post of workers of the 3rd respondent Corporation. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “In the selection to the posts of Workers in the Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. preference is given, other things being equal, to the eligible candidates belonging to the following WA No. 1722 of 2010 -:2:- categories: (i) Persons evicted from the project site. (ii) Persons whose land has been acquired for project site. (iii)Persons belonging to the surrounding Panchayats to the project who have been working at the project site.” It can be seen from the above that there are three categories of persons who are specified to belong to the preferred categories. 3. The instant writ petition is filed aggrieved by proceedings dated 21.06.2010 of the 3rd respondent Corporation. The relevant portion reads as follows: “As per the Government Order, it has been decided by the Company to recruit to the post of Junior Worker in the unskilled category of the T.P. unit of the company from the preferential category herein below mentioned. 1. People who were evacuated for the sites of KMML. 2. The owners of the properties taken for the purpose of KMML. 3. Those who have worked at the contract site of KMML. 4. The Apprentices who have successfully completed the apprenticeship period in the company as per the Apprenticeship Act. It has been decided to fill the 110 existing vacancies and 57 vacancies expected to arise by December 2011.” WA No. 1722 of 2010 -:3:- 4. The grievance of the petitioners is with reference to the categories 3 and 4 mentioned above. According to the petitioners, by including the abovementioned two categories the Company acted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the stipulation made in the Government Order dated 01.01.1988 referred to above. More specifically the case of the petitioners is that the 3rd category mentioned in that Government Order i.e., persons belonging to the Panchayats surrounding the project who have been working at the project site would be prejudicially affected by the decision of the 3rd respondent. 5. The petitioners assert at paragraph 7 of the writ petition as follows: “It is submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 belong to Panmana Panchayat and the third petitioner belong to Chavara Panchayat. Both the said Panchayats are considered as surrounding Panchayats for the purpose of providing preferential employment. Petitioners are working in the project site under the various contractor engaged by the Company. Among them, petitioners 1 and 2 have more than 100 days attendance, whereas the third petitioner does not have 100 days attendance. Third petitioner, however, has one year experience in working under the contractor in project site of the Company.” WA No. 1722 of 2010 -:4:- 6. The substance is that the petitioners have been working in the project site under various contractors engaged by the Company. The assertion, may be true or not, a matter that is to be decided upon evidence. The writ petition has been dismissed at the admission stage without any counter by the 3rd respondent Corporation. Assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners did in fact work under the Contractors, the impugned proceedings, in our view, do not prejudicially in any way affect the priority created under Clause (iii) of the abovementioned Government Order. In Clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned proceedings it is stated that preference would be given to those who have worked at the Contract site or apprentices of the Company falling within the definition of the Apprenticeship Act who have successfully completed the Apprenticeship. The abovementioned Government Order does not create any unrestricted right in favour of the inhabitants of the surrounding Panchayats. It only creates a preferential treatment, (other things being equal) in favour of persons belonging to the WA No. 1722 of 2010 -:5:- surrounding Panchayat to the Project, who had been working at the project site. Apprentices of the Company or persons who are working at the site would certainly be persons, in our opinion, falling within the third category of the said Government Order. In the circumstances we do not see any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb