Kerala High Court
Jin Mathew vs The Director,Directorate Of Fisheries on 7 June, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WA NO. 702 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.41542 OF 2018 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
JIN MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.P.K.ITTIMATHEW, PYNADATH HOUSE, POICKATTUSSERY,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, CHENGAMANAD P.O., ALUVA - 683
578., PIN - 683578
BY ADVS.
S.SUDHISH KUMAR
SIBI KARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR,DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES
4TH FLOOR, VIKHAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SOCIETY FOR ASSISTANCE TO FISHER WOMEN (SAF),
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, EAST KADUNGALLOOR, UC.COLLEGE
P.O, ALUVA, PIN - 683102
3 PREETHA SALU, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERIYAKADAVU,
KANNAMALI.P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682008
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A.No.702 of 2024
JUDGMENT
P.M.Manoj, J.
The present Writ Appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated
09.04.2024 in W.P.(C) No.41542 of 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge
of this Court. The challenge raised by the petitioner in the writ petition
against the selection process undertaken by the 1st respondent to the post '
Mission Co-ordinator' was rejected.
2. Short facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as under:
The appellant herein was the writ petitioner. He holds an MBA degree
and had worked as a Mission Coordinator on contract basis with the 1st
respondent. The 1st respondent published Ext.P1 notification for the
appointment of Mission Coordinator on contract basis. The appellant applied
for the post and his name was included as Sl. No 5 in the select list. It is
alleged by the appellant that the 3rd respondent, who was placed as serial
No.6 in the rank list, had been appointed for the post through back door
methods. In the said circumstances the appellant approached this Court
assailing the selection. It was specifically contended that the 3rd respondent
was appointed through a walk-in-interview conducted on 23.06.2017 while
Ext.P2 rank list is valid upto 18.11.2017.
3. Counter affidavits were filed by the respondents 2 and 3. In the
Counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it was asserted that pursuant
to Ext.P1 notification, Ext.P2 rank list was published on 01.11.2016. The
vacancy to the post, the Mission Coordinator (Social Mobilization),
Ernakulam, to which the selection was conducted was only one. Sri.Sandeep
K.T., who was Sl No. 1 in Ext.P2 Rank List, was appointed. Thereafter, he
was shifted to Thrissur District. The resultant vacancy was filled up by the
person who was placed as Sl No 2 in Ext.P2 and thereby the Ext P2 Ranked
List got exhausted. It was contended that the interview and selection was
conducted in strict compliance of Ext.R2(a) guidelines. Later, there occurred
a shortage of staff in the Nodal Office of SAF at Ernakulam. To fill up the
vacancy, appointments were made on daily wages. For that purpose, the
selection process was conducted by issuing notice dated 12.05.2017 as per
Ext.R2(b). Walk-in-interview was held on 15.05.2017 at the office of the
Nodal Officer of SAF, Ernakulam. Four candidates attended the
walk-in-interview and the select list was published on 18.05.2017. On the
basis of performance of the candidates attending the interview, the 3rd
respondent herein was appointed on daily wage basis. The appellant did not
care to respond or participate in the interview. The appointment of the 3rd
respondent was for the period from 18.05.2017 to 28.08.2017 and she was
terminated from the post on 26.08.2017.
4. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, on considering the
need, urgency and necessity for a qualified staff, at headquarter and Nodal
Office of SAF another notice was issued on 07.06.2017 inviting applications
i.e. Ext.R2(c). In that notice it was stated that the details will be available in
the website. The notification published in the website is produced as
Ext.R2(d) in the counter affidavit. Pursuant to the same, another
walk-in-interview was conducted on 23.06.2017. The petitioner as well as
the 3rd respondent participated. Resultantly Ext.R2(e) ranked list was
published. The 3rd respondent secured 3rd position and the petitioner
secured the 10th position. One Jijo Jose, who secured Rank No. 1 was
appointed. The 2nd rank holder, though appointed, did not join. Hence the
3rd respondent was appointed from Ext.R2(e) rank list. The appointment of
3rd respondent was not in pursuance to Ext.P1 notification.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as
the learned Government Pleader. We have perused the records.
6. We find from the materials produced before us that the
appointment of the 3rd respondent was not pursuant to Ext.P1 notification
or Ext.P2 ranked list. Exhibit P2 ranked list got exhausted after two persons
were appointed from the list. Later based on fresh requirements, a
walk-in-interview was held on 23.06.2017. The petitioner admittedly did not
care to participate. The learned Single Judge held that a fresh selection
process was carried out by the 1st respondent and third respondent was
appointed.
7. As the selection process was held on the basis of a fresh
notification and as it was after due process that the 3rd respondent was
appointed, the grievance of the petitioner raised in the writ petition has no
basis.
The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
das
