Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Ramakrishnan K.M on 8 August, 2025
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 1
2025:KER:59411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1655 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.7976 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN
FOR MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 MISSION DIRECTOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX,
PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.K.R.DEEPA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 2
2025:KER:59411
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
1 RAMAKRISHNAN K.M
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.P.CHANDU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA
HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O., VATAKARA (VIA), KOZHIKODE
(OMBUDSMAN, KANNUR), PIN - 673308
2 DR.K.K.BABU
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. K.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKALLYANI,
AISWARYA COLONY, PALAKKAD(OMBUDSMAN, PALAKKAD),
PIN - 678002
3 ABRAHAM O.P
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. O.J., PAULOSE (LATE), RESIDING AT
ONISSERIYIL HOUSE, MUTHUMARI,
THRISSILERY P.O., KARTIKULAM,
WAYANAD (OMBUDSMAN, WAYANAD), PIN - 670646
4 NAZEER V.A
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. V.ALI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEPPURAYIL HOUSE,
VALIYAKUTHIRUMMAL, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., KASARAGOD
(OMBUDSMAN -KASARAGOD), PIN - 671311
5 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MGNREGS, KRISHI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD, R1 TO R4
SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI, SCGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1805/2025, THE COURT ON
08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 3
2025:KER:59411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1805 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.2868 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF
OMBUDSMAN FOR MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL
EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.K.R.DEEPA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
1 SAM FRANCLIN L.
S/O.B.LARSON, BLOSSOM, NOUSE NO.16, ARADHANA
NAGAR, MARUTHOOR, VATTAPPARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (OMBUDSMAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), PIN - 695028
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 4
2025:KER:59411
2 V.P.SUKUMARAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.RARUKUTTY NAIR, 'GOPIKA', P.O. KURUVANGAD,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN,
KOZHIKODE), PIN - 673620
3 ABDUL RASHEED C.
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.ALIKUTTY, CHENGAT HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN, MALAPPURAM),
PIN - 676303
4 C.RADHA KRISHNA KURUP
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPA KURUP, CHIRAKARATH, AIJI KUNNAM,
SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT), PIN - 690521
5 P.G. RAJAN BABU
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.K.GOPALA PILLAI, POOVARASSERIL HOUSE,
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN,
IDUKKI DISTRICT), PIN - 689645
6 K.V. ABDUL AZEEZ
S/O.BAPU HAJI, THAWBA, SRA 15 A, SPW ROAD,
THAIKATTUKARA, ALUVA (OMBUDSMAN, THRISSUR
DISTRICT), PIN - 683106
7 M.D. VARGHESE
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. M.P.DOMINIC, MEKKATHUKULAM HOUSE, 63/SNRA,
SAHRUDAYA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM,
(OMBUDSMAN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT), PIN - 682021
8 SAYEED A.
S/O.ABDUL KARIM, TC NO.12/2175, PONRA-123,
KUNNARA VEEDU, MODAMKOVIL ROAD, THAMARAKADU
JUNCTION, PARUTHIPPARA, MUTTADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (OMBUDSMAN, KOLLAM),
PIN - 695025
9 SAJI MATHEW
/O.LATE K.SAMUEL, ALINVILAYILPUTHEN VEEDU,
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 5
2025:KER:59411
PALLICKAL EAST, THEKKEKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA (OMBUDSMAN, ALAPPUZHA),
PIN - 690107
10 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MGNREGA DIVISION, KRISHI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADV SMT.K.NANDINI, R1 TO R9
SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI, SCGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1655/2025, THE COURT ON
08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 6
2025:KER:59411
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.1655/2025, 1805/2025] Syam Kumar V.M., J.
Heard C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Appeal No.1655 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 77 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made to codone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
2. These Writ Appeals are filed by the State challenging the common judgment dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.7976 of 2024 and 2868 of 2024. Since common questions arise for consideration, these appeals are heard and disposed of together.
3. The common judgment impugned in these appeals had been rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions preferred by persons who are working as Ombudsman under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme (MGNREGS) in various Districts of the State. They had filed the W.P.(C)s, principally challenging the process for selection commenced by the State for making new appointments of Ombudsman, before completion of their WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 7 2025:KER:59411 present tenure and without completing their performance appraisal. They had in the W.P.(C)s inter alia sought to quash the notification issued inviting applications for selection to the post of Ombuds persons in their respective Districts and for a direction to permit them to continue in service till the completion of four years.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions, inter alia, holding that the State Government does not have the discretion not to conduct the performance appraisal and, without conducting the performance appraisal, terminate the appointment of the Ombudsman on expiry of 2 years. It was held that conducting the performance appraisal is mandatory, and if in the performance appraisal, the work and conduct of the Ombudsman are found satisfactory, their services should be extended for another year and thereafter for one year further, that too based on the performance appraisal. The learned Single Judge also directed the Government to conduct a performance appraisal of the work of the Ombudsman, and if it was found that their work and conduct are satisfactory, they should be allowed to continue till they complete their extendable tenure. It was further held that if the Government decides not to exercise the performance appraisal, then the Ombudsman should be allowed to complete their extended time WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 8 2025:KER:59411 as per the guidelines. It was also clarified that the Government may go ahead with the selection of the new Ombudsman, but they shall be appointed only after the extended tenure of the party respondents is complete. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State had preferred these appeals.
5. Heard Smt.K.R.Deepa, Special Government Pleader for the appellants, Sri.T.T.Muhamood, Advocate and Smt.K.Nandini, Advocate for the respondents and Sri.N.S.Daya Sindhu Shree Hari, the SCGC.
6. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the finding of the learned Single Judge militates against the meaning of clause 2.2.9 of the guidelines issued by the Government of India in this respect whereby the Ombudsman can be appointed for a tenure of 2 years and it is extendable not more than twice by one year each based on a performance appraisal process. It was contended that this clause can be interpreted only to mean that the appointment shall be done for 2 years, and if it is decided to extend the same, as envisaged at the Will of the appointing authority, then the same should be based on a performance appraisal. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not have interpreted the relevant clause differently, especially since no counter affidavit had been filed WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 9 2025:KER:59411 by the Union Government. It was also submitted that the selection process for the Ombuds persons for various Districts is complete and the Government have approved the final rank list for appointment of Ombuds persons and the same has already been notified vide GO(P) No.22/2025/LSGD Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.04.2025. Singularly due to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the persons selected after complying with all the procedural formalities could not be appointed. It is submitted that if the present Ombuds persons are permitted to complete the extended period as directed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the same would cause prejudice to the interests of the State as well as to the candidates in the select list. The learned Special Government Pleader thus sought to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, I.e., the Ombuds persons, contended that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. Performance appraisal is mandatory as stipulated in the relevant guidelines, and any attempt to terminate the services of the Ombuds persons who are occupying the posts at present without conducting performance appraisal would be WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 10 2025:KER:59411 illegal and arbitrary, as has been rightly found by the learned Single Judge. The interpretation of the relevant clause in the guideline that has been put forth by the State, to exclude a performance appraisal, is termed incorrect and legally unsustainable. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the respective party respondents in both Writ Appeals who are presently occupying the extended period as Ombudsman have only a brief period of service left and there is no legally sustainable cause or reason to disturb or terminate them before completion of their tenure. According to the learned counsel, the term left for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.A.No.1655 of 2025 is around 10 months and similarly, for those in W.A.No.1805 of 2025 is around 3 months. It is thus contended by the learned counsel that there is no legally sustainable cause or reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge or to terminate the services of the Ombudsman before completion of their term period. They thus seek a dismissal of the W.As.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single Judge had made a detailed and thorough analysis of the legal aspects involved and had concluded that correct construction that WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 11 2025:KER:59411 would be given to the language employed in clause 2.2.9 of the guidelines dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Rural Development is that the performance appraisal is mandatory on completion of 2 years of initial tenure and if in the performance appraisal, the work and conduct of the Ombudsman is found satisfactory, his services ought to be extended for one year and thereafter for a period of one more year. This too has to be based on the second performance appraisal. We find the above said reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge to be valid, proper and legally tenable. There is no cause or reason to interfere with the findings arrived at based on the said reasoning. At the same time, we take note of the fact that the selection process for the Ombuds persons for various Districts has already been completed and the Government have approved the final rank list for appointment of Ombuds persons. The same has already been notified under Ext.P9 notification. In light of the said developments, most of which had occasioned during the pendency of the litigations, we deem it fit and proper to dispose of this W.As, affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge and permitting the party respondents who are presently occupying the post of Ombuds WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 12 2025:KER:59411 persons to complete their respective terms. Thereafter, it shall be open to the appellants to proceed in furtherance of Ext.P9 notification for appointment to the respective post of Ombuds persons in accordance with law.
With the above modification, these W.As are hereby disposed of.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 13
2025:KER:59411
APPENDIX OF WA 1805/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST
ALONG WITH THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P)
NO.22/2025/LSGD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 16.04.2025
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 14
2025:KER:59411
APPENDIX OF WA 1655/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST
ALONG WITH THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P)
NO.22/2025/LSGD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 16.04.2025.