Kerala High Court
Shibu N vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 11729 OF 2012
PETITIONER/S:
SHIBU N, N.R.MANDIRAM, NETTAYAM, NEDIYAR P.O.,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN-691306.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
PRAVEEN S
SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND
REHABILITATION (R) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 REHABILITATION OF PLANTATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNALUR-691305
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3 THE MANAGER
(PERSONNEL & ADMN.), REHABILITATION
PLANTATION LIMITED PUNALUR-691 305 KOLLAM
DISTRICT.
4 T. KARTHIKEYAN
MANKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM ESTATE, IIND
DIVISION, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, MUNDAKAYAM P.O.,
KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM.
5 JOSEPH V.P.
RUBBER DIVISION, KONNY ESTATE, KALLELYTHOTTAM
P.O., KOPZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 691.
6 REGHUNADHAN V.
SHALIACARY ESTATE QUARTERS, PUNALUR, EDAMON,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM.
7 ARUN U.S.
UDAYAMKANDATHIL, KARINILAM P.O., AMARAVATHY,
KANJIRAPPALLY, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
686 513.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI SR.
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R,SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
W.P.(C) No.11729 of 2012
=============================================================
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2023
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
"i) To issue a writ of Certiorari calling for records
relating to the appointment of respondents 4, 5, 6 and
selection of respondent No. 7 as Tapper / Work Supervisor
under 2nd respondent, and quash the same since they are
not having the requisite qualification for selection.
ii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order
directing 2nd and 3rd respondents to appoint petitioner as
Tapper / Work Supervisor under 2nd respondent, since
being fully qualified as per Ext. P-1 and P-1 (a) and
ranked as No.12.
iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or
order directing 2nd and 3rd respondents to appoint only
fully qualified person as per Exts. P-1 and P-1 (a) from
Ext. P-2 rank list, removing unqualified persons.
iv) To issue any other appropriate writ or order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case." (sic)
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
2. The 2nd respondent, which is a joint venture of
Government of India and the Government of Kerala, owns 2070
Hectares of estate and three factories. The company has been
started on the formulation of rubber plantation scheme in 1972
for the settlement of Sri Lankan repatriates. The 2nd respondent is
a public institution and according to the petitioners, selection and
appointments are to be made fairly free from illegality and
arbitrariness. The selection for the post of Tapping / General
Work Supervisors, ineligible candidates were appointed is the
contention raised by the petitioners. According to the petitioners,
respondents 4 to 7 do not possess the requisite minimum
qualification and experience. Hence, the appointment of
respondents 4 to 7 are challenged in this writ petition.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing
Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. I also heard the
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
counsel appearing for respondents 4, 5 and 7. The Government
Pleader appeared for the 1st respondent.
4. This writ petition is pending before this Court from
2012 onwards. No interim order passed in this case. The
Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that
respondents 4 and 5 got appointed on 12.03.2012 and 07.03.2012
and the 7th respondent was appointed on 01.04.2013. The 6th
respondent is no more. The main contention of the petitioner is
that the contesting respondents are not having qualification. A
counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. It will be better to
extract paragraph 3 hereunder:
"3. The averments in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are denied as
incorrect and untenable. The averment that the respondent
No.4 who is selected and ranked as No.3 is not having the
prescribed qualification of certificate of tapping course
conducted by the Rubber Board is denied as incorrect. He
has produced the certificate of the Rubber Board certifying
that he has successfully completed 18 days training on
Rubber Culture and Estate Management at the Rubber
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
Board, Kottayam. Further, he has also undergone the
course conducted by the Rubber Board for the pest and
disease control at the Rubber Training Centre, Kottayam.
The course contents of training on rubber culture and
Estate Management include tapping, modern techniques of
tapping etc in addition to other related and relevant topics.
The certificate issued by the Rubber Board is appropriate
and in accordance with the requirements for the
supervisory post of the candidate having undergone the
tapping course conducted by the Rubber Board, which is
relevant for the said post of supervisor. Further the 4th
respondent has also undergone the course conducted by
the Rubber Board for the pest and disease control at the
Rubber Training Centre, Kottayam. Undergoing the said
course is very relevant and necessary for the said post to
identify the diseases of rubber trees under tapping as well
as of immature rubber trees. The 4th respondent was
working as a Supervisor in large estate of Harrisons
Malayalam Ltd., supervising the work of tapping of rubber
trees as well as all allied works in the rubber estate of
spraying insecticides and other disease control measures
of tapping rubber trees including direct supervision of
tapping work. Such direct supervision and control is
accepted as essential experience for the post of supervisor
of tapping as well as other works relating to rubber trees.
The object and purpose of experience for supervisory post
is not actual work of a tapper, which is relevant for
appointment of tappers. A person who has been working as
a tapper alone is not suitable enough for supervising
different General works maintenance, Pest and Disease
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
Control etc of rubber trees. What is essential for the post
of supervisor of tapping and general works is experience
and exposure in relation to tapping of rubber trees. By
means of the skill test of all candidates the knowledge,
experience and actual skill of supervising tapping and all
connected works are assessed and marks awarded by
subject experts i.e.. the Deputy Rubber Production
Commissioner, Rubber Board and the Manager (Estate) of
the respondent company. The 4th respondent has been
found to be more suitable than the petitioner and others,
by competent and expert persons. Therefore, the several
allegations and contentions made by the petitioner against
selection and ranking of 4th respondent are devoid of any
basis or substance. The allegations and contentions made
by the petitioner in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are denied as
baseless and untenable. Exhibit P-6 specifies in respect of
all candidates the required certificate of tapping from the
Rubber Board as aforementioned. There is no basis in the
allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 7.
4. The contentions in paragraph 8 are denied as untenable.
All candidates having the required qualifications have
been considered by process of written test, skill test and
interview on the basis of relevant certificates issued by the
competent authorities. Exhibit p-8 series of certificates
are also certificates in relation to rubber tapping issued by
the Rubber Board, which is having different tapping
courses relevant for the work of a supervisor to control
and supervise the general work as well as tapping in
rubber plantations. Latex harvesting is nothing but taking
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
the latex by tapping the rubber trees. Tapping work is only
to extract latex from the rubber trees which by modern
techniques and usage is described as latex harvesting.
Pests and disease control and latex harvesting certificates
are relevant and necessary requirements for supervisory
post of general work and tapping in the rubber estate.
There is no substance in the contentions in paragraph 9.
The matters stated in Exhibits P-9 and P-9(a) are without
any relevance or substance since it is for the 2nd
respondent to decide the course undergone at the Rubber
Board for supervisory post and not for the job of a rubber
tapper."
5. The counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that
subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was
appointed on 26.03.2013 by the 2nd respondent. In the light of the
averments in the counter affidavit and also considering the fact
that respondents 4, 5 and 7 are continuing for about ten years, this
Court is of the opinion that their appointment need not be
disturbed at this distance of time. Moreover, the petitioner was
also appointed subsequently. If there is any seniority issue, that
question is left open.
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11729/2012
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DETAILS FOR THE
APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF
TAPPING/GENERAL WORK SUPERVISOR (ON
REGULAR BASIS) ISSUED BY THE COMPANY.
Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT INVITING
APPLICATION FOR TAPPING/GENERAL WORK
SUPERVISOR PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DATED 3.11.2010.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED
3.3.2012.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ON PESTS
AND DISEASE CONTROL PRODUCED BY 4TH
RESPONDENT FOR SELECTION, WHICH
PETITIONER RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED
BY 5TH RESPONDENT INSTEAD OF
CERTIFICATE OF TAPPING COURSE CONDUCTED
BY RUBBER BOARD.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED
BY 6TH RESPONDENT FOR SELECTION WHICH
PETITIONER OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT'S
TRAINING CERTIFICATE ON COURSE OF PESTS
AND DISEASE CONTROL, WHICH THE
PETITIONER OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT'S
TRAINING CERTIFICATE ON COURSE OF LATEX
HARVESTING, WHICH THE PETITIONER
OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF
QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS 4, 5, 6
AND 7 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
W.P.(C). No. 11729 of 2012
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
13.7.2004 IN TAPPING COURSE ISSUED BY
RUBBER BOARD TO PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RUBBER
TAPPING COURSE CONDUCTED BY RUBBER
BOARD PRODUCED BY RANK HOLDER NO.1.
Exhibit P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RUBBER
TAPPING COURSE CONDUCTED BY RUBBER
BOARD PRODUCED BY RANK HOLDER NO.2.
Exhibit P8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RUBBER
TAPPING COURSE CONDUCTED BY RUBBER
BOARD PRODUCED BY RANK HOLDER NO.5.
Exhibit P8(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RUBBER
TAPPING COURSE CONDUCTED BY RUBBER
BOARD PRODUCED BY RANK HOLDER NO.8.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPIES OF PETITIONER'S LETTER
DATED 3.5.2012 TO RUBBER BOARD,
DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING.
Exhibit P9(A) INFORMATION ISSUED BY RUBBER BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING.
