Pratheeja T vs Kerala Agricultural University
2021 Latest Caselaw 7761 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.11782 OF 2020(W)


PETITIONER:

               PRATHEEJA T.,
               AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. SURESH KUMAR,
               AMBALATHINGAL VEEDU, 247, PAYYATTUVILA P O,
               KOTTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501.

               BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
               VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680656.

      2        THE VICE CHANCELLOR
               KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
               VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680656.

      3        THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD,
               KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, COCONUT RESEARCH
               STATION, BALARAMAPURM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501.

      4        SARANYA S
               VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VANIGAR STREET,
               BALARAMAPURAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.SURYA BINOY
               R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN

OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT NICHU WILINGTON REPRESENTING SMT SURYA BINOY SC
               KERALA AGRI. UTY.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
05.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.11782/2020                  -2-



                             JUDGMENT

DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

Gopinath, J:

This writ petition is filed in the matter of selection and appointment

of Casual Labourer (woman) under the Kerala Agricultural University. The

petitioner and the 4th respondent responded to a notification issued by the

University. The manner and method of selection was the conduct of two

skill tests followed by an interview. The first skill test was to carry a load of

20 Kilogram over a specified distance and the other was to fill bags with

potting mixture. The petitioner was not selected. The 4th respondent was

selected.

2. Sri. Muhammed Al Rafi, appearing for the petitioner contends

that it is the case of the petitioner that the nature of the skill test etc was

never indicated in the notification and that the 4th respondent did not fare

well in either of the skill tests. It is her specific case that the 4th respondent

fainted during the first skill test and even in the second she could not fare

well because she was very tired. According to her in the interview was

conduced subsequently the only questions asked were regarding the family

details of the candidates and no further assessment of merit was done. She

contends that the details regarding the marks awarded etc. have been

produced by the University only after she filed a reply affidavit in the

matter. She, therefore, says that it is an afterthought. Sri. V.

Madhusudhanan, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent contends that

the contention of the petitioner that the 4 th respondent did not fare well

during the skill test is absolutely incorrect. He submits that the selection

was conducted properly and that there is no material to suggest otherwise.

Ms. Nichu Willington, appearing for the Agricultural University

representing Mrs. Surya Binoy, Standing Counsel for University would

submit with reference to Exts.R1 (f) & R1 (g) mark lists that the

performance of the candidates at the skill test was duly recorded and both

the petitioner and the 4th respondent had signed those documents, which

according to her is a clear indication of the fact that there were no

malafides in the selection process.

3. I have considered the contentions of either side. This is a case

where the selection of a Casual Labourer (woman) is under challenge. Of

course, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the

nature of the skill test etc. was never indicated in the notification. But that

alone cannot invalidate the selection conducted. This court in the exercise

of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot

examine disputed questions of facts of the nature arising in the facts of this

case and would be loath to do so especially when there is no allegation of

malafides in the selection process. That apart in respect of performance in

the skill test both petitioner and the 4th respondent have affixed their

signatures on the score sheet which indicates that the petitioner had no

objection in the recording of higher marks for the 4th respondent in the

skill test. Though the petitioner would contend that in the totality of the

facts and circumstances a fresh selection should be directed, I am not

inclined to do so especially considering the fact that the selection is to the

post of Casual Labourer and in nature of the allegations raised against the

selection and in the absence of any malafides, it would be improper for this

court to direct fresh selection to the conducted. Writ petition fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

(Sd/-) GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DATED B/404/2017 DATED 20.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.B-404/2017 DATED 3.06.2020 ALONG WITH RANKED LIST ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.