Sreedevi S vs The Selection Committee
2023 Latest Caselaw 5497 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                WP(C) NO. 13007 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:

    1    SREEDEVI S.,
         AGED 38 YEARS
         D/O.B.SARASWATHI AMMA,SREENILAYAM,
         KARAZHMA EAST, VALIYAKULANGARA .P.O.,
         MAVELIKARA
    2    MAYADEVI R
         AGED 38 YEARS
         W/O. JAYAPRASAD, VAROTTIL, EZHAKKADAVU P.O.
         CHERUKOLE, MAVELIKARA
    3    AJITHA SUNIL,
         AGED 33 YEARS
         W/O. SUNILKUMAR, SUNIL BHAVANAM, KARAZHMA EAST,
         VALIYAKULANGARA P.O. MAVELIKARA

         BY ADV RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE SELECTION COMMITTEE,
         CHENNITHALA THRIPPERUMTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
         INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCHEME
         (ICDS), REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, THE CHILD
         DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS MAVELIKARA
         PROJECT, MINI CIVIL STATION, 2ND FLOOR,
         MAVELIKARA -690 101
    2    THE DIRECTOR
         DIRECTORATE OF WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
         SOCIAL WELFARE BHAVAN, POOJAPURA,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
    3    THE DISTRICT WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
         OFFICER,
         DISTRICT ICDS CELL, MELUVALLIL BUILDING,
         NEAR KALLUPALAM BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA-688 011
 W.P.(C) No.13007/2020
                            :2:


    4     THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,
          ICDS MAVELIKARA PROJECT, MINI CIVIL STATION,
          2ND FLOOR, MAVELIKARA-690 101

    5     ADDL R5, ALKA B.SATHEESAN,
          MOOLESSERIL, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O,
          MAVELIKARA-690 105
    6     ADDL R6, MINI K.G,
          PADYIL, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O,
          MAVELIKKARA-690 105
    7     ADDL R7, PRASANTHY S,
          AMBALAKKATTU KIZHAKETHIL, CHERUKOL P.O,
          MAVELIKKARA-690 105
    8     ADDL R8, SREEJA SANJEEVAN,
          VAZHAPPALLIL, CHENNITHALA P.O,
          MAVELIKKARA-690 105.
          IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01-07-2020 IN IA
          NO.1/2020.
    9     ADDL. R9 CHENNITHALA THRIPPERUMTHURA GRAMA
          PANCHAYATH,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          PANCHAYAT KARYALAM, CHENNITHALA P.O.,
          MAVELIKKARA-690 105.
          ADDL. R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
          8/7/2022 IN IA I/22 IN WPC 13007/2020.

          BY ADVS.
          SMT.K.G. SAROJINI, GP
          SRI.T.B.HOOD-ADDL R5 TO R8
          SMT.M.ISHA- ADDL R5 TO R8
          SRI.AMAL KASHA- ADDL R5 TO R8
          SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN-ADDL R9
          SMT.T.M.RESHMI-ADDL R9

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.13007/2020
                                        :3:




                                                                          CR


                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No.13007 of 2020

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                 Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2023


                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

The petitioners are before this Court seeking to

quash Ext.P17 select list and to direct the 4 th respondent to

appoint them in the vacancies of Anganwadi Workers in

Anganwadi Centre Nos.81, 84, 96 and 155 of Chennithala

Thriperumthura Grama Panchayat under the ICDS

Mavelikkara Project.

2. The petitioners state that they had earlier

worked as temporary Anganwadi Workers. Proceedings

were initiated for making regular appointment to four W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

existing vacancies of Anganwadi Workers in Chennithala

Thriperumthura Grama Panchayat. According to the

petitioners, the select list prepared is illegal and one drawn

violating the conditions in GO dated 30.04.2018.

3. The petitioners state that they are qualified to be

appointed as Anganwadi Workers. They have worked as

temporary Anganwadi Workers earlier. Four permanent

vacancies of Anganwadi Workers exist in Chennithala

Thriperumthura Grama Panchayat in Anganwadi Centre

Nos.81, 84, 96 and 155. The petitioners therefore

submitted applications for permanent appointment. The

respondents constituted a Selection Committee. As per

Ext.P14 Government Order dated 22.12.2012, the

Panchayat President is the Chairperson and the ICDS

Project Officer is the Convenor. There are three other ex-

officio members. Five social workers are also included in

the Committee. The petitioners would submit that the

Panchayat is ruled by the Left Front and five

representatives to the Committee were nominated purely W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

based on political consideration.

4. As per Ext.P16 GO dated 30.12.2018, every

fourth vacancy shall be set apart for promotion from

Anganwadi Helpers and 10% vacancies in every project

should be set apart for persons who donated land for

Anganwadi or for their dependents. The 1 st petitioner is

therefore entitled to appointment to the first vacancy in the

10% quota. The 1st petitioner has around 400 days of

working experience. The 2 nd petitioner is the secondmost

senior out of the temporary Anganwadi Workers.

5. The petitioners submit that an illegal selection

was conducted on 28.12.2019. A select list of 60 persons

was published as per Ext.P17 for appointment as

Anganwadi Workers and another 39 persons for

appointment as Anganwadi Helpers. Ext.P17 has not been

prepared based on merit. Extraneous considerations have

impacted Ext.P17. Persons selected are kith and kin of

Selection Committee members. Close relatives of the

Panchayat President are ranked top in Ext.P17 list. The W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

selection itself is vitiated as the Interview Board consists of

persons who are close relatives of the candidates who

were assigned top rank in the select list. Aggrieved by

Ext.P17 select list, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P18

representation before the 4 th respondent-Child

Development Project Officer. Ext.P18 did not yield any

result.

6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the

select list contains close relatives of the nominated

Selection Committee members. Applications were

submitted by the close relatives after the nomination of the

five Selection Committee members by the Panchayat

Committee. Such relatives of candidates who are in the

Selection Committee should not have participated in the

selection process. Now, hasty steps are being taken to

grant appointment to candidates who are ranked top on

extraneous considerations.

7. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the Apex Court in Asok Kumar Yadav and W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

others v. State of Haryana and others [(1985) 4 SCC

417] and argued that in the process of taking decision in

respect of several persons by an Administrative Body, if

there is a real likelihood of bias on the part of a member of

that Body in respect of even a single person, that member

should withdraw from the entire process. The counsel

urged that it is not necessary to establish bias but it is

sufficient to invalidate a selection process if it could be

shown that there is reasonable likelihood of bias.

8. As the selection is vitiated by bias, the selected

candidates who are included in the select list will not get

any right. The petitioners relied on Rakesh Kumar Gupta

and others v. State of U.P. and others [2005 SCC 172] in

this regard.

9. Respondents 1 and 4 opposed the writ petition.

Respondents 1 and 4 submitted that the Selection

Committee was constituted following the criteria laid down

in Ext.P14 GO. Respondents 1 and 4 are not expected to

scrutinise the constitution of Selection Committee. The W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

Selection Committee is to be finally approved by the

District Social Justice Officer. The District Social Justice

Officer has approved the constitution of Selection

Committee as per Ext.R4(a), which approval is not under

challenge.

10. As regards the claim of the 1st petitioner to get

appointment based on donation of land, respondents 1 and

4 pointed out that the 1st petitioner's mother had only

expressed a consent to the Panchayat to donate the land.

Property is not transferred to the Panchayat. The 4 th

respondent has participated in the selection process in a

fair manner. The petitioners have failed to advance any

evidence to establish bias in giving marks to respondents 5

to 8. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merits.

11. Respondents 5 to 8 also contested the writ

petition filing counter affidavit. Respondents 5 to 8

submitted that all affected parties are not impleaded in the

writ petition. The petitioners have no allegation that they

have not been awarded marks based on the laid down W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

criteria. There is no allegation that the petitioners were

given lower marks. They don't even have case that

respondents 5 to 8 were given higher marks. Respondents

5 to 8 further pointed out that the 1 st petitioner's mother

surrendered land to one Priyadarshini Mahila Samajam

and not to the Panchayat. The 1 st petitioner has no case

that she is a dependent of the person who donated land.

12. It is further submitted on behalf of respondents 5

to 8 that Grama Panchayat Committee consists of various

political parties and persons were nominated to the

Selection Committee by the Grama Panchayat Committee.

The five social workers who were nominated to the

Selection Committee did not belong to one political party.

In fact, all the five nominated members were qualified and

competent to act as Selection Committee members. The

petitioners have not advanced a definite case of bias.

Respondents 5 to 8 possess higher qualifications and

hence they were ranked above the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

13. The 9th respondent-Secretary to Grama

Panchayat filed counter affidavit. The Panchayat Secretary

is only a member in the Selection Committee. The

Panchayat has no other role in the selection process. The

decision to make appointment to the post of Anganwadi

Workers or Helpers rest fully with the 1 st respondent. The

1st petitioner or her mother has not assigned any property

to the Panchayat for the purpose of constructing

Anganwadi. The writ petition is therefore liable to be

dismissed.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing

respondents 1 to 4 and the respective learned counsel

appearing for respondents 5 to 9.

15. The petitioner has alleged specific case of bias

in the selection process for appointment to the four existing

vacancies of Anganwadi Workers in Chennithala

Thriperumthura Grama Panchayat. Ext.R4(a) order dated

03.08.2019 of the District Social Justice Officer contains W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

the names of five persons who are nominated to the

Selection Committee. The candidate selected and placed

at Serial No.1 of Ext.P17 Alka V. Satheesan is daughter of

Bini Satheesan who is an approved nominated member to

Selection Committee as per Ext.R4(a). Serial No.15

Sreeja Sanjeevan is wife of Sanjeevan, Vazhappallil who is

also a nominated member to the Selection Committee.

The petitioners would allege that Miss. Mini K.G. placed at

Serial No.3 is also a relative of Bini Satheesan. Mr.

Prasanth who is selected and placed at Serial No.6 is a

close relative of the Panchayat President. The petitioners

would point out that the candidates at Serial Nos.1, 3, 6

and 15 who were awarded 14.83, 13.42, 10.68 and 12.71

marks respectively out of the total 15 marks for interview.

The petitioners were awarded much lesser marks.

16. Assuming for argument sake that there is no

serious anomaly in awarding marks to the candidates who

participated in the interview based on their qualifications,

even then it is obvious that the Selection Committee W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

consisted of interested parties vis-a-vis the candidates

participating in the selection process. The impact of bias in

selection proceedings is well explained by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India

and others [(1969) 2 SCC 262]. The Hon'ble Apex Court

held that what is to be seen is whether there is reasonable

ground for believing that a member of the Selection

Committee is likely to have been biased. A mere suspicion

of bias is not sufficient and there must a reasonable

likelihood of bias. In the case of candidates at Serial No.1

Alka V. Satheesan, she is daughter of Bini Satheesan who

is a member of the Selection Committee. Serial No.15

Sreeja Sanjeevan is wife of Sanjeevan, Vazhappallil.

When parents/spouse of candidates are actively involved

in a Selection Committee, it has to be assumed that there

is reasonable likelihood of bias taking into consideration

human probabilities and ordinary course of human

conduct.

W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

17. In the judgment in Asok Kumar Yadav and

others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that one of the

fundamental principles of our jurisprudence is that no man

can be a Judge in his own cause and that if there is a

reasonable likelihood of bias, it is in accordance with

natural justice and commonsense that the person likely to

be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting.

18. As regards the argument of the respondents that

all candidates in the select list are not parties to the writ

petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Mukul

Kumari Thyagi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh

and others [(2020) 4 SCC 86] has held that when the

inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is

on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process, the

aggrieved parties can complain and in such cases,

necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot

be insisted.

19. Dr.(Mrs.) Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India

and others [(1991) 1 SCC 104] was a case where the W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

mother-in-law of the selected candidate was vitally

interested in the admission of her daughter-in-law and

participated in the selection proceedings. The Hon'ble

Apex Court held that the very presence of the mother-in-

law in the meeting is sufficient to establish bias and it was

not necessary to prove actual bias. It is sufficient to

invalidate the selection process if it is shown that there is

reasonable likelihood of bias.

20. It is true that the petitioners have approached

this Court after participating in the selection process.

Normally, a candidate cannot challenge selection process

after participating in the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court

has held in the judgment in Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai v.

State of Bihar and others [(2019) 20 SCC 17] that the

said principle is differentiated in so far as candidate by

agreeing to participate in selection process only accepts

prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. Therefore,

I find that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners

is amply justified in the facts and circumstances of the W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

case.

21. The selection process impugned in the writ

petition is clearly vitiated by bias due to the facts and

reasons given above. Ext.P17 select list is therefore

quashed. Respondents 2 to 4 and 9 are directed to

constitute a fresh Selection Committee and conduct

selection process afresh, considering the candidature of

those who have already participated in the selection

process. This shall be done within a period of two months.

Writ petition is disposed of above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/19.04.2023 W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13007/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC BOOK OF 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF GIFT DEED DT 13.05.1983 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PRIYADRSHINI MAHILA SAMAJAN, EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF SSLC BOOK OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF SSLC CERTIFICATE OF 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.74/2012/SJD W.P.(C) No.13007/2020

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO.13/13 OF THE CHENNITHALA THRIPPERUMTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.254/2018/SGD DATED 30.04.2018 EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF SELECTION LIST OF ANGANWADI WORKERS OF CHENNITHALA THRIPPERUMTHURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RATION CARD NO. 1421012720 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S MOTHER Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO.9/1 DATED 20.7.2019 TAKEN BY THE CHENNITHALA THRIPPERUMTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) 85/2013/SGD DATED 19/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA DATED 22/3/2012 BY THE PROGRAM OFFICER

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A4/1820/19 DATED 03.08.2019.

Exhibit R4 B TRUE COPY OF LIST SPECIFICALLY STATING THE FIELD OF SOCIAL WORK OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

Exhibit R4 C TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS) NO. 58/08/SJD DATED 22.10.2008.

Exhibit R4 D TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED SENIORITY LIST IN WHICH MRS RADHAMONY IS INCLUDED.

Exhibit R5 A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (M.S.) NO.

58/08/SJD DATED 22.10.2008.