Kerala High Court
Rajeev R vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2021
O.P.(KAT) No.425 of 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.425 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 465/2018 DATED 13-12-2019
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
RAJEEV R.,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.T.N.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SEVITHAM,
SAKTHI NAGAR-66, T.K.M. COLLEGE P.O.,
KARICODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SURVEY AND LAND
RECORDS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, KERALA.
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, KERALA.
3 THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
KERALA.
O.P.(KAT) No.425 of 2020 2
4 SAPNA.M.,
SAPNA NIVAS, KUTTIYATTOOR,
KUTTIYATTOOR P.O.,
KANNUR-670 601, KERALA.
R1 & R3 BY SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, GOVT.PLEADER
R2 BY SRI P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PSC.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
R4 BY ADV. SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR
R4 BY ADV. SHRI.REJIVUE
R4 BY ADV. SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN
R4 BY ADV. SHRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
R4 BY ADV. SHRI.VISWAJITH C.K
R4 BY ADV. SMT.GISHA G. RAJ
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT) No.425 of 2020 3
ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R. RAVI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT) No.425 of 2020
[Arising out of order dated 13.12.2019 in
O.A.(Ekm)No.465/2018 of KAT, Ekm. Bench]
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
T.R.RAVI, J.
The original petition has been filed challenging the order dated
13.12.2019 in O.A.(Ekm) No.465 of 2018 issued by the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
The 2nd respondent (KPSC) had issued Annexure-A1 notification
dated 15.11.2012 inviting applications for appointment to the post of
Attender (Plate Graining) in the Department of Survey and Land
Records. The qualification prescribed for the post was a pass in 7 th
standard or the equivalent and experience in plate graining
photozincography of not less than two years. The petitioner and the
4th respondent applied for the post. The 2 nd respondent published
Annexure-A3 ranked list which was to be effective from 20.12.2016.
The 4th respondent and the petitioner were ranked as Sl.Nos.1 and 2
in the ranked list. The 4th respondent who was ranked higher was
advised by the 2nd respondent, and, was thereafter appointed as per
Annexure-A4 order dated 24.6.2017. Aggrieved by the ranking, the
petitioner approached the Tribunal filing OA (Ekm)No.465 of 2018.
By Ext.P11 order dated 13.12.2019, the Tribunal dismissed the
original application. The original petition is filed challenging the
above-said order.
2. Heard Sri T.R.Harikumar on behalf of the petitioner,
Sri B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, Sri P.C.Sasidharan, learned
Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Public Service Commission
and Sri M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 th
respondent.
3. The petitioner relies on Annexure-A5 which is the
experience certificate issued by the M/s.Leos Printers and Binders,
certifying the experience of the 4th respondent. According to the
petitioner, the document does not contain details of the experience
as required under Annexure-A1 notification. It is further contended
that as per Annexure-A6 reply received from the State Public
Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, M/s.Leos
Printers and Binders had not been registered for plate cleaning and
graining work. It is also contended based on Annexure-A6, that
M/s.Leos Printers and Binders had started operation only on
06.12.2011 and hence there was no possibility of the 4 th respondent
having gained experience of two years by 19.12.2012, which was the
last date for applying.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a reply statement producing
the clear copy of Annexure-A5, as Annexure-R4(d). It can be seen
from Annexure-R4(d) that the 4th respondent had experience in plate
graining photozincography from 01.04.2008 to 20.04.2010.
Annexure-R4(d) shows that M/s.Leos Printers and Binders had been
registered with the Labour Department on 31.08.2000 and had taken
SSI registration on 17.2.2012. It can be seen from Annexure-R4(d)
that the experience certificate issued by M/s.Leos Printers and
Binders has been attested by the Assistant Labour Officer, Kannur-I
Circle stating that he has verified the muster roll and the wage
register which are maintained by the employer as per the provisions
of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is also pointed out by Sri
M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent that as per
Annexure-R4(b) reply received by the 4th respondent under the Right
to Information Act, M/s. Thaiparambil Industries from where the
petitioner claims to have gained his experience in plate graining
photozincography, is a unit which has been registered showing its
activity as "Offset plate repairing and paper cutting, m/c knife
sharpening", which would go to show that the experience claimed by
the petitioner is not in accordance with Ext.P1 notification. The
counsel further contended that photozincography is a process
involved in printing, that was originally used for printing maps and
has become redundant now owing to the growth in technology. He
submits that though the technology has become outdated, it is still
being used by some printers. According to him, M/s.Leos Printers
and Binders have been registered for manufacturing printed matters,
in particular, notices, bill books, and wedding cards, and the said
activity of printing includes plate graining photozincography. The
above submission is not seriously disputed.
5. The 3rd respondent has filed a reply statement stating that
two vacancies in the post of Attender (Graining Plate) arose on
01.09.1995, which were reported to the 2nd respondent on
04.08.2004, pursuant to which the 2 nd respondent undertook the
selection process that resulted in the ranked list Annexure-A3. It is
stated that the 4th respondent was advised on 30.05.2017, that an
appointment order was issued on 24.6.2017 and that she joined
service on 10.07.2017. The 3 rd respondent has further stated that the
petitioner's complaint was enquired into by the Assistant Director of
Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram, who had submitted a
report on 21.11.2017 stating that the certificate produced by the 4 th
respondent is genuine and not fake as contended. The report also
relies on information obtained from the Assistant Labour Officer,
Kannur through Annexure-R3(a) letter dated 21.11.1997 wherein it is
stated that the experience claimed is genuine and the same has been
verified by examining the muster roll and wage register of the
employer.
6. The 2nd respondent has also filed a reply statement,
wherein it is stated that pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification an
OMR test was conducted on 02.05.2014 and thereafter Annexure-A3
ranked list was published. It is stated that only two vacancies were
reported, out of which one was filled up by the advice and
appointment of the 4th respondent and the other was set apart for
NCA-SC.
7. The Tribunal has considered in detail all the materials
available on record and held that the claim of the petitioner that
M/s.Leos Printers and Binders has started operations only on
06.12.2011 cannot be accepted since Annexure-A6 does not
conclusively lead to such a finding. The Tribunal has relied on the
entries in the document, which clearly show that M/s.Leos Printers
and Binders was registered with the Labour Department on
31.8.2000 and held that the registration as SSI unit on 07.02.2012
cannot be the basis for deciding whether the 4 th respondent had the
necessary experience of two years from working in the said
establishment.
8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had contended that
the requirement under Rule 10(ab) of Part II of KS&SSR has not
been satisfied. According to Rule 10(ab), where the Special Rules or
Recruitment Rules for a post in any service prescribe qualification or
experience, it shall, unless otherwise specified, be one gained by the
persons on temporary or regular appointment in capacities other
than paid or unpaid apprentices, trainees and Casual Labourers in
Central or State Government Service, or in Public Sector
Undertaking or Registered Private Sector Undertaking, after
acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post. The
contention of the petitioner was that experience gained by the 4 th
respondent before the grant of registration cannot be accepted. The
Tribunal rejected the contention finding that M/s.Leos Printers and
Binders was having registration from 31.8.2000 and any subsequent
registration obtained by them can only be for different purposes.
The Tribunal also noticed that the petitioner had not impleaded M/s
Leos Printers and Binders and the Labour Officer who had attested
the certificate issued by the employer after verifying the records kept
by the employer.
9. On the materials available on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are legally
justified. The employer has certified that the 4 th respondent had
necessary experience in plate graining photozincography, which is
the requirement under Annexure-A1 notification. The certification
by the employer has been verified and attested by the Assistant
Labour Officer, Kannur Circle, after examining the muster roll and
wage register maintained under the provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner has not raised any challenge against
the certification by the Assistant Labour Officer. The 3 rd respondent
has also specifically stated that an enquiry was conducted into the
complaint submitted by the petitioner and it was found that the
experience certificate produced by the 4 th respondent was genuine.
In the light of the above-established facts, which have been relied on
by the Tribunal in arriving at its finding, it is not possible for this
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to arrive at the finding that the order of the
Tribunal is illegal, improper, irrational or unfair, warranting
interference by this Court.
The original petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI, JUDGE
dsn
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.465/2018 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CATEGORY
NO.555/2012 DATED 15.11.2012.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
GIVEN BY THE PROPRIETOR, THYPARAMBIL
INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCED BY THE
APPLICANT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT
DATED 14.12.2012 AND ATTESTED BY THE
ASSISTANT LABUR OFFICER, KOLLAM DATED
14.10.2015.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST
NO.827/16/DOT PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON
20.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.SURVEY A5.13448/17 DATED 24.06.2017
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
OBTAINED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FROM
LEON PRINTERS AND BINDERS DATED
03.10.2016 AND ATTESTED BY THE
ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR CIRCLE
DATED 03.11.2016.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED FROM
THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR
DATED 17.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT IN OA NO.465/2018 DATED
04.06.2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
10.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
ANNEXURE R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER
NO.8/RTI/15/2018 DATED 04.04.2018.
ANNEXURE R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF ENTREPRENEUR'S
MEMORANDUM OF LEOS PRINTERS.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
IN OA NO.465/2018 DATED 30.07.2018
ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P3 R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A5-
1312/17(1) DATED 21.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1362/2017
DATED 04.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY
THE PETITIONER IN OA NO.465/2018 DATED
13.08.2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
NO.K11/3937/2018 DATED 18.07.2018
ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT
INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION ASKED UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED
08.02.2018.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.RTI 1161/2018
DATED 23.02.2018 GIVEN BY THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT
INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO REJOINDER
FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA
NO.465/2018 DATED 13.09.2018.
ANNEXURE R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TO ACCEPT
REPLY STATEMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO.465/2018 DATED
29.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER
FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA
NO.465/2018 DATED 08.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO.2236 OF 2019 IN
OA NO.465/2018 DATED 29.11.2019 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
19.12.2019 FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE
PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.H9/86/19/RTI DATED 21.01.2020 ISSUED
BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ALONG WITH
APPLICATIONS FILED BY MR.DHANESH.K.,
FOR THE YEARS 2011-2012, 2013-2014 AND
2014-2015.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.12.2019 IN OA NO.465/2018 OF THE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM).
