Kerala High Court
Asha P Gopinath vs Sanjay M Kaul Ias on 27 January, 2021
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1725 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1700/2012(J)
PETITIONERS:
1 ASHA P GOPINATH,
AGED 39 YEARS,W/O.DR.MANOJ P.G.,POIKAPARAMBIL
HOUSE, BHOODANAM P.O, NILAMBUR,MALAPPURAM-
679334.
2 MANOJ C,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN C.V, CHETTIAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
PADIYOOR P.O, KANNUR-670703.
3 RENJITH A.S,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.SASIDHARAN K.K,ANIKKATTU HOUSE, VADAKARA
P.O, THALYOLAPARAMBU,KOTTAYAM-686605.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
SMT.K.C.AISHWARYA
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
2
RESPONDENTS:
1 SANJAY M KAUL IAS,
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001
2 DR.K.ELLANGOVAN IAS
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT
OF INDUSTRIES,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD 6/8/19 IN
IA 1/19 IN COC 1725/18
3 SHRI.K.T.JAYARAJAN
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE
TEXTILE CORPORATION,ANNAPOORNA,TC9/2000,KOCHAR
ROAD,SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010
ADDL R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD 30/9/2020
IN IA 1/2020 IN COC 1725/18
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R3 BY ADV. P.U.SHAILAJAN
OTHER PRESENT:
GP BIJOY CHANDRAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 7.01.2021, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).43/2019, THE
COURT ON 27-1-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.43 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4352/2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4352/2012(T)
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED NISTHAR M.A.
S/O ABDUL LATIF,AGED 35 YEARS,MANALATHVALAPPIL
HOUSE,PERUMPILAVU,THRISSUR,NOW AT MILLENNIUM
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,P.O.BOX NO.38806,ABU
DHABI-UAE,PRESENTLY AT ENG.AHMED AL MAZROUEI
TRADING L.L.C,AL YAYF STREET,BUILDING
NO.4,P.O.BOX 4644,ABU DHABI,UNITED ARAB
EMIRATES
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 DR.K.ELLANGOVAN I.A.S
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT
OF INDUSTRIES,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
4
2 SHRI.A.V.RAJAN
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE
TEXTILE COR PORATION,'ANNAPOORNA',TC9/2000-
01,KOCHAR
ROAD,SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010
NAME OF R2 IS REPLACED WITH SHRI.M.GANESH AS
PER ORDER DTD 22/2/19 IN IA 1/19 IN COC 43/19
3 SHRI K.SUDHIR
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE
TEXTILE CORPORATION,ANNAPOORNA TC9/2000,KOCHAR
ROAD,SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
4 SHRI.K.T.JAYARAJAN
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE
TEXTILE CORPORATION,ANNAPOORNA,TC9/2000,KOCHAR
ROAD,SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010
ADDL R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD 30/9/2020
IN IA 1/2020 IN COC 43/19
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
R4 BY ADV. P.U.SHAILAJAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 7.01.2021, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1725/2018, THE
COURT ON 27-1-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
5
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Contempt of Court (C).Nos.1725 of 2018
& 43 of 2019
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
1. These contempt of court cases are filed alleging violation of
the undertaking given before this Court, which was recorded
in the common judgment dated 4.4.2017. The writ petitions
had been filed challenging the decision taken by the
Government to cancel the selection conducted for appointment
to several posts in public sector undertakings under the State
Government. The selections had been conducted as
authorised by the Government by an order dated 1.1.2011. By
an order dated 2.12.2011, the State had decided to cancel the
selections and the said order was under challenge.
2. An affidavit was filed in the writ petitions by the Government
stating that the Government proposes to go on with the
appointment on the basis of the recruitment made in
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
pursuance of the Government Order dated 1.1.2011 to the
vacancies sanctioned following the procedure for recruitment.
The said submission was recorded and the writ petitions were
closed on 4.4.2017. These contempt of court cases were filed
alleging that in spite of the submissions made before this
Court, the Government had refused to act upon the same and
recruitment process had not been restarted.
3. An affidavit had been placed on record by the 1 st respondent,
Secretary to the Government in the Industries Department. It
was stated that a Government Order had been issued on
27.3.2018 in compliance with the submissions made before
this Court and in cancellation of the Government Order dated
2.12.2011. It is stated that clauses 2 and 4 of G.O. dated
2.12.2011 were not withdrawn, so as to maintain the status
quo in respect of 44 posts, which were entrusted to the Kerala
Public Service Commission. With regard to the posts which
were not within the purview of the Public Service Commission,
it was stated that the Government had directed the Kerala
State Textiles Corporation (KSTC for short) to go ahead with
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
the appointment process as per the ranked list prepared,
subject to the availability of vacancies. It was, therefore
contended that the undertaking given before this Court had
been complied with.
4. The Managing Director, KSTC was thereafter impleaded as
party and affidavits have been placed on record. It is
submitted that the 3rd petitioner in COC.No.1725/2018, who
was included in the ranked list of Junior Manager (Accounts)
had been issued with an appointment order. As far as
respondents 1 and 2 in COC.No.1725/2018 and the petitioner
in COC.No.43/2019 are concerned, it is submitted that the
petitioners were included in the ranked list of Junior Manager
(Marketing) in the Textile Corporation and had earlier been
issued with appointment orders on the understanding that
there were vacancies to accommodate them in the new mills
at Uduma, Pinarayi and Komalapuram. It is stated that it was
intended to start the commercial operation of mills at Uduma,
Pinarayi and Komalapuram in the year 2011. But the mills
were not started due to various reasons. It is stated that the
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
Komalapuram mill started commercial operation on 1.6.2016
and Uduma mill started functioning on 29.10.2018 and
Pinarayi mill started functioning on 28.2.2019. However, it is
submitted that due to the delay in starting production, a
revised project report was submitted by the Kerala State
Textiles Corporation before the Government and the post of
Junior Manager (Marketing) was abolished and no
appointment could therefore be made from the ranked list to
the post which is no longer in existence. Additional affidavits
have also been placed on record, pointing out the absence of
vacancy in the post of Junior Manager (Marketing) in the
KSTC. There is no post available to accommodate the
petitioners and that the appointment therefore could not be
effectuated.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that
even in case there is no vacancy to accommodate the
petitioners, in view of the fact that appointment orders had
been issued to the petitioners, the provision of Rule 7 of Part II
KS & SSR are liable to be followed in a case of this nature and
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
the petitioners are liable to notional appointments and to be
granted a preferential right to future vacancies. Reliance is
placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Raj Singh v. State
of Haryana [(2000) 6 SCC 759] to contend that where the
court is prima facie of the opinion that contempt has been
committed, further direction can be issued in the contempt
proceedings itself.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced. The submission
made before this Court was with regard to the cancellation of
the order dated 2.12.2011. Apparently, the submissions made
before this Court have been given effect to by the Government
by passing an order dated 27.3.2018. The further contention
with regard to appointments under the KSTC would have to be
considered on the basis of the availability of vacancies. It is
the specific case of the petitioners that they had been issued
with appointment orders before the earlier Government Order
dated 2.12.2011 was issued. If that be so, the petitioners
would have a claim for the benefit of Rule 7 of Part II KS &
SSR, in case the KS&SSR or the principles therein are
Cont.Case C).Nos.1725/18 & 43/19
applicable to appointment in the KSTC. However, the scope of
the contempt of court proceedings cannot be so extended to
enable the issuance of further writs and directions. Relying on
the decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner would contend
that in a case where this Court finds prima facie contempt,
such further directions could be issued. In the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, I am unable to hold that
such a course of action would be justified herein. The issue
whether the petitioners are entitled to discharge and re-
appointment in terms of Rule 7 is the matter which has to be
independently considered by this Court with specific notice on
the issue to the KSTC.
In the above view of the matter, the Contempt of Court cases
are closed, leaving open the contentions of the parties to be
agitated in appropriate proceedings.
sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj/14/1/2021
APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 1725/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2017 IN
WPC.NO.1700/2012.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPIES OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED
22.5.2017.
