Abdu Rahim vs Parappanangadi Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 17007 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943

                               RP NO. 519 OF 2021

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30673/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:

            ABDU RAHIM
            AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KOLOLI HOUSE, PALATHINKAL, POST
            ULLALAM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676303.

            BY ADVS.
            ELVIN PETER P.J.
            K.R.GANESH
            SIDHARTH SUDHEER
            GOURI BALAGOPAL



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

     1      PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT-676303.

     2      THE SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI,
            MALAPPURAM-676303.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT.JAMSHEED HAFIZ




     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 519 OF 2021

                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment

dated 18.03.2021, asserting that a mistake was committed in the

submissions made at the time when the matter was disposed of.

2. Sri.K.R.Ganesh - learned counsel appearing for the

review petitioner, submitted that, in fact, in obedience to the

interim order dated 14.11.2019, the petitioner had been allowed to

participate in the interview and that he was subsequently selected

and appointed. He submitted that, therefore, this Court may recall

the judgment sought to be reviewed and allow his client to continue

in service, based on the said selection.

3. I notice that the only reason why the review petitioner

had not been allowed to participate in the interview - which

compelled him to approach this Court - was because a stipulation

was made that only persons sponsored by the Employment Exchange

will be eligible for being considered. However, on account of

declaration of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of

Orissa and Others v. Mamata Mohanty [2011(3) SCC 436], it is

now well-settled that exclusion of all streams except one, for the

purpose of selection is not legally permissible. RP NO. 519 OF 2021

4. Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz - learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents, did not contest the factual submission of

Sri.K.R.Ganesh, that petitioner has been selected and appointed. He

also submitted that in view of the declaration of law by the

Honourable Supreme Court as afore, the petitioner can be allowed

to continue.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Review Petition and

declare that the selection process undertaken by the review

petitioner, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated

14.11.2019, will be treated as final and he will be entitled to all

applicable benefits.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp RP NO. 519 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF RP 519/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.G1-2843/19 DATED 4.1.2020 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.G1-2843/2019 DATED 22.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.