Kerala High Court
Navas P vs The State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
NAVAS P.
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.ABDU RAHMAN, PUTHIYOTH HOUSE, VAZHAYUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI. K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 033.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, UP-HILL,
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505.
4 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.
5 THE MEDICAL OFFICER
FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
673 640.
6 VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673 640.
7 THE PRESIDENT
VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673 640.
BY ADVS. SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL, STANDING COUNSEL FOR
PANCHAYATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022
The petitioner, a qualified medical graduate, had
applied for appointment to the post of Doctor in the
Vazhakkad Health Centre, pursuant to Ext.P1
notification dated 25.10.2021. The interview for
appointment to the notified post was conducted on
02.11.2021. According to the petitioner he has
secured the first position, as is discernible from
Ext.P2 information received under the Right to
Information Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal
of the Panchayath to appoint him and attempt to
conduct fresh interview for the post of Doctor at
Vazhakkad Health Centre.
2. The Panchayath's stand, as reflected from
their counter affidavit, is that the Committee decided
not to proceed with the process of appointment based
on the interview conducted on 02.11.2021, since the
result of that interview had leaked, before the rank list
was placed for consideration of the Panchayath
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
Committee. The Committee therefore decided to
conduct a fresh interview as evidenced by Ext.R6(b).
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contented
that the Panchayath is adopting surreptitious methods
for denying appointment to the petitioner, so as to
appoint a person of their choice. To that end, a fake
story that the marks of the interview was leaked
before it was placed in the Panchayath Committee is
put forth. It is contented that, merit being the
primary consideration for public appointment, the
Panchayath is bound to appoint the petitioner, he
having secured the maximum marks in the interview.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath
submitted that, securing of maximum marks in the
interview, by itself, will not vest the petitioner with
any legal right to claim appointment. It is for the
Panchayath to decide as to the person most suited for
the notified post, based on the marks and other
relevant factors. The marks of the interview having
leaked before the Committee taking its decision, the
sanctity of the whole process was lost.
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that
interview was conducted and rank list prepared
following due procedure.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, I find substantial merit in the contention
that having conducted interview following due
procedure, the mere fact that the marks of the
interview was made available in response to a query
under the Right to Information Act, should not be to
the prejudice of the person, who secured the
maximum marks. Even if the contention of the
learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath that the
list will be finalised only after taking into account
other relevant factors also is accepted, there is no
justification for not placing the list for such
consideration before the Panchayath Committee. If
the whole process of selection is to be set aside on
the basis that the marks were divulged before the list
reaching the Committee, in future also such
subterfuge can be used to scuttle the process of
appointment.
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing
the Panchayath Committee to finalise the process of
appointment pursuant to Ext.P1, based on the marks
secured by the candidates and other relevant factors,
if any, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. Till a decision is taken in the manner
directed above, the interim order granted on
15.11.2021 shall continue to be in force.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB/24-2
WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25276/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 25/10/2021.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY ONE OF
THE WARD MEMBERS AS PER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT DATED 6/11/2021 FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER VAZHAKKAD COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
10/11/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
10/11/2021.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(a) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECISION NO.12/4
DATED 10.11.2021 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(b) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF DECISION NO.12/5
DATED 10.11.2021 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
