Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Sam Franclin L on 8 August, 2025
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 1
2025:KER:59411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1655 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.7976 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN
FOR MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 MISSION DIRECTOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX,
PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.K.R.DEEPA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 2
2025:KER:59411
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
1 RAMAKRISHNAN K.M
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.P.CHANDU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA
HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O., VATAKARA (VIA), KOZHIKODE
(OMBUDSMAN, KANNUR), PIN - 673308
2 DR.K.K.BABU
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. K.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKALLYANI,
AISWARYA COLONY, PALAKKAD(OMBUDSMAN, PALAKKAD),
PIN - 678002
3 ABRAHAM O.P
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. O.J., PAULOSE (LATE), RESIDING AT
ONISSERIYIL HOUSE, MUTHUMARI,
THRISSILERY P.O., KARTIKULAM,
WAYANAD (OMBUDSMAN, WAYANAD), PIN - 670646
4 NAZEER V.A
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. V.ALI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEPPURAYIL HOUSE,
VALIYAKUTHIRUMMAL, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., KASARAGOD
(OMBUDSMAN -KASARAGOD), PIN - 671311
5 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MGNREGS, KRISHI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD, R1 TO R4
SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI, SCGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1805/2025, THE COURT ON
08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 3
2025:KER:59411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1805 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.2868 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF
OMBUDSMAN FOR MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL
EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.K.R.DEEPA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
1 SAM FRANCLIN L.
S/O.B.LARSON, BLOSSOM, NOUSE NO.16, ARADHANA
NAGAR, MARUTHOOR, VATTAPPARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (OMBUDSMAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), PIN - 695028
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 4
2025:KER:59411
2 V.P.SUKUMARAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.RARUKUTTY NAIR, 'GOPIKA', P.O. KURUVANGAD,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN,
KOZHIKODE), PIN - 673620
3 ABDUL RASHEED C.
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.ALIKUTTY, CHENGAT HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN, MALAPPURAM),
PIN - 676303
4 C.RADHA KRISHNA KURUP
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPA KURUP, CHIRAKARATH, AIJI KUNNAM,
SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT), PIN - 690521
5 P.G. RAJAN BABU
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.K.GOPALA PILLAI, POOVARASSERIL HOUSE,
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (OMBUDSMAN,
IDUKKI DISTRICT), PIN - 689645
6 K.V. ABDUL AZEEZ
S/O.BAPU HAJI, THAWBA, SRA 15 A, SPW ROAD,
THAIKATTUKARA, ALUVA (OMBUDSMAN, THRISSUR
DISTRICT), PIN - 683106
7 M.D. VARGHESE
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. M.P.DOMINIC, MEKKATHUKULAM HOUSE, 63/SNRA,
SAHRUDAYA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM,
(OMBUDSMAN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT), PIN - 682021
8 SAYEED A.
S/O.ABDUL KARIM, TC NO.12/2175, PONRA-123,
KUNNARA VEEDU, MODAMKOVIL ROAD, THAMARAKADU
JUNCTION, PARUTHIPPARA, MUTTADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (OMBUDSMAN, KOLLAM),
PIN - 695025
9 SAJI MATHEW
/O.LATE K.SAMUEL, ALINVILAYILPUTHEN VEEDU,
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 5
2025:KER:59411
PALLICKAL EAST, THEKKEKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA (OMBUDSMAN, ALAPPUZHA),
PIN - 690107
10 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MGNREGA DIVISION, KRISHI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADV SMT.K.NANDINI, R1 TO R9
SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI, SCGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1655/2025, THE COURT ON
08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 6
2025:KER:59411
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.1655/2025, 1805/2025]
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
Heard C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Appeal No.1655 of 2025 for
condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 77
days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in
support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause has been made to codone the delay. Hence the
delay is condoned.
2. These Writ Appeals are filed by the State challenging the
common judgment dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.7976 of 2024
and 2868 of 2024. Since common questions arise for consideration,
these appeals are heard and disposed of together.
3. The common judgment impugned in these appeals had been
rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions preferred by
persons who are working as Ombudsman under the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme (MGNREGS) in
various Districts of the State. They had filed the W.P.(C)s, principally
challenging the process for selection commenced by the State for
making new appointments of Ombudsman, before completion of their
2025:KER:59411
present tenure and without completing their performance appraisal.
They had in the W.P.(C)s inter alia sought to quash the notification
issued inviting applications for selection to the post of Ombuds
persons in their respective Districts and for a direction to permit them
to continue in service till the completion of four years.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions, inter
alia, holding that the State Government does not have the discretion
not to conduct the performance appraisal and, without conducting the
performance appraisal, terminate the appointment of the Ombudsman
on expiry of 2 years. It was held that conducting the performance
appraisal is mandatory, and if in the performance appraisal, the work
and conduct of the Ombudsman are found satisfactory, their services
should be extended for another year and thereafter for one year
further, that too based on the performance appraisal. The learned
Single Judge also directed the Government to conduct a performance
appraisal of the work of the Ombudsman, and if it was found that their
work and conduct are satisfactory, they should be allowed to continue
till they complete their extendable tenure. It was further held that if the
Government decides not to exercise the performance appraisal, then
the Ombudsman should be allowed to complete their extended time
2025:KER:59411
as per the guidelines. It was also clarified that the Government may
go ahead with the selection of the new Ombudsman, but they shall be
appointed only after the extended tenure of the party respondents is
complete. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single
Judge, the State had preferred these appeals.
5. Heard Smt.K.R.Deepa, Special Government Pleader for the
appellants, Sri.T.T.Muhamood, Advocate and Smt.K.Nandini,
Advocate for the respondents and Sri.N.S.Daya Sindhu Shree Hari,
the SCGC.
6. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader
that the finding of the learned Single Judge militates against the
meaning of clause 2.2.9 of the guidelines issued by the Government
of India in this respect whereby the Ombudsman can be appointed for
a tenure of 2 years and it is extendable not more than twice by one
year each based on a performance appraisal process. It was
contended that this clause can be interpreted only to mean that the
appointment shall be done for 2 years, and if it is decided to extend
the same, as envisaged at the Will of the appointing authority, then
the same should be based on a performance appraisal. It is submitted
that the learned Single Judge ought not have interpreted the relevant
clause differently, especially since no counter affidavit had been filed
2025:KER:59411
by the Union Government. It was also submitted that the selection
process for the Ombuds persons for various Districts is complete and
the Government have approved the final rank list for appointment of
Ombuds persons and the same has already been notified vide GO(P)
No.22/2025/LSGD Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.04.2025.
Singularly due to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge,
the persons selected after complying with all the procedural
formalities could not be appointed. It is submitted that if the present
Ombuds persons are permitted to complete the extended period as
directed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the same would
cause prejudice to the interests of the State as well as to the
candidates in the select list. The learned Special Government Pleader
thus sought to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents, I.e., the Ombuds persons, contended that the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and
does not call for any interference. Performance appraisal is
mandatory as stipulated in the relevant guidelines, and any attempt to
terminate the services of the Ombuds persons who are occupying the
posts at present without conducting performance appraisal would be
2025:KER:59411
illegal and arbitrary, as has been rightly found by the learned Single
Judge. The interpretation of the relevant clause in the guideline that
has been put forth by the State, to exclude a performance appraisal,
is termed incorrect and legally unsustainable. It is pointed out by the
learned counsel that the respective party respondents in both Writ
Appeals who are presently occupying the extended period as
Ombudsman have only a brief period of service left and there is no
legally sustainable cause or reason to disturb or terminate them
before completion of their tenure. According to the learned counsel,
the term left for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.A.No.1655 of 2025 is
around 10 months and similarly, for those in W.A.No.1805 of 2025 is
around 3 months. It is thus contended by the learned counsel that
there is no legally sustainable cause or reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge or to terminate the services of
the Ombudsman before completion of their term period. They thus
seek a dismissal of the W.As.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the
respective contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single
Judge had made a detailed and thorough analysis of the legal
aspects involved and had concluded that correct construction that
2025:KER:59411
would be given to the language employed in clause 2.2.9 of the
guidelines dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Government of India
Ministry of Rural Development is that the performance appraisal is
mandatory on completion of 2 years of initial tenure and if in the
performance appraisal, the work and conduct of the Ombudsman is
found satisfactory, his services ought to be extended for one year and
thereafter for a period of one more year. This too has to be based on
the second performance appraisal. We find the above said
reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge to
be valid, proper and legally tenable. There is no cause or reason to
interfere with the findings arrived at based on the said reasoning. At
the same time, we take note of the fact that the selection process for
the Ombuds persons for various Districts has already been completed
and the Government have approved the final rank list for
appointment of Ombuds persons. The same has already been
notified under Ext.P9 notification. In light of the said developments,
most of which had occasioned during the pendency of the litigations,
we deem it fit and proper to dispose of this W.As, affirming the
finding of the learned Single Judge and permitting the party
respondents who are presently occupying the post of Ombuds
2025:KER:59411
persons to complete their respective terms. Thereafter, it shall be
open to the appellants to proceed in furtherance of Ext.P9
notification for appointment to the respective post of Ombuds
persons in accordance with law.
With the above modification, these W.As are hereby disposed
of.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 13
2025:KER:59411
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST
ALONG WITH THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P)
NO.22/2025/LSGD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 16.04.2025
WA NOs.1655 & 1805/2025 14
2025:KER:59411
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST
ALONG WITH THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P)
NO.22/2025/LSGD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 16.04.2025.
