Kerala High Court
Thomas Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2025
Author: N. Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:8963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 44010 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
THOMAS JOSEPH,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.FR.JOSEPH,
KURUNKATTIL GRIGORY VILLA,
MAKKAMKUNNU. P. O. ,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
BY ADVS.
GEORGE A.CHERIAN
LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE MANAGER,
MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH COLLEGES,
(OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF MOC COLLEGES),
DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686004
2025:KER:8963
W.P.(C) No.44010/2023
:2:
4 THE PRINCIPAL,
CATHOLICATE COLLEGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
5 DIPU ACHENKUNJU,
MARAMTHOTTATHU, PUTHENVEEDU,
ASHTAMUDY.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691602
6 ANNAROY,
CHEEPUNGAL (H), RAYAMANGALAM.P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
ADDL.R7 MOST REV. DR.ZACHARIA MAR APREM,
METROPOLITAN, ADOOR KADAMBANAD DIOCESE,
ADOOR
(ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 22-02-2024 IN IA.1/2024 IN W.P.
(C)44010/2023).
BY ADVS.
ROSHEN D.ALEXANDER
K.S.BHARATHAN
TINA ALEX THOMAS
HARIMOHAN
AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
ALEENA SONY
KAMAL ROY M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON 05.02.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8963
W.P.(C) No.44010/2023
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.44010 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is working as Office Attendant
on temporary basis from 01.06.2015 in the Catholicate
College, Pathanamthitta, seeks to quash Ext.P14 to the
extent it excludes the petitioner, and to direct the 3 rd
respondent to appoint him in the regular vacancy to the post
of Assistant in the College.
2. The petitioner states that he is working as Office
Attendant in the 4th respondent-College since 01.06.2015.
The petitioner has 8 years of continuous service. He is aged
39 and has studied up to 10th Standard. He is the only
person appointed as Office Attendant, who has not passed
2025:KER:8963
SSLC examination.
3. The petitioner and four other temporary
appointees requested the 3rd respondent-Principal to appoint
them on regular basis as Office Attendants. The 4 th
respondent-Principal issued Ext.P2 letter dated 21.02.2023
to the Government to permit them to give relaxation in the
matter of upper age limit to the petitioner and four others
since they have been working for long years. The
educational agency also sent Ext.P3 letter dated 23.02.2023
to the Minister for Higher Education seeking to give age
relaxation. The Government, by Ext.P4 letter dated
02.05.2023, required the Director of Collegiate Education to
give to the petitioner and others age relaxation in the
selection process of Office Attendants in the College.
4. However, the 3rd respondent-Manager was not
inclined to accept the recommendation. The Government,
by letter dated 19.07.2023, informed the 3 rd respondent that
temporary staff in Aided Colleges have preferential claim for
2025:KER:8963
appointment to the vacancies arising in future.
5. The 3rd respondent, however, issued Ext.P10
Notification dated 05.07.2023 inviting applications for
appointment to various posts including Office Attendants.
The petitioner submitted Ext.P12 application. The petitioner
received letter dated 20.11.2023 from the 3rd respondent
requiring the petitioner to appear before the Selection
Committee on 06.12.2023. Though the petitioner appeared
before the Selection Committee, the petitioner was asked
only about his age. The Committee did not even verify any
of the documents. When Ext.P14 ranklist was published, the
petitioner's name was not included.
6. The petitioner states that Ext.P14 ranklist is illegal
and unjust. The 3rd respondent did not consider the
preferential claim of the petitioner or his experience. When
a person is working continuously from 2015 onwards and
was paid salary, the 3rd respondent cannot plead ignorance
about the temporary appointment. Ext.P14 is therefore
2025:KER:8963
liable to be set aside.
7. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The 1st
respondent submitted that the Government, after seeking a
report from the Director of Collegiate Education, advised the
3rd respondent to permit the petitioner and four others to take
part in the selection process on the basis of his previous
experience and preferential claim.
8. Respondents 3 and 7 resisted the writ petition.
Respondents 3 and 7 submitted that pursuant to Ext.P10
Notification, though the Selection Committee required the
writ petitioner to submit valid documents relating to his age
and preferential claim, no documents were submitted by the
petitioner. The petitioner was called for interview in view of
the direction given by the Government. The petitioner did
not qualify in the interview. After participating in the
selection proceedings, the petitioner cannot turn around and
say that interview was only an eyewash.
2025:KER:8963
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel
representing respondents 3 and 7 and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6.
10. The fact that the petitioner is working as Office
Attendant on temporary basis in the 3rd respondent-College
is not in dispute. The petitioner and similarly situated
temporary Office Attendants, requested the 3 rd respondent-
Manager to consider the claim of the petitioner for
preferential appointment.
11. When the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P10
Notification dated 05.07.2023, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P12 application. The petitioner appeared in the
interview held on 06.12.2023. When Ext.P14 ranklist was
published, the petitioner's name was not included as a
selected candidate. The petitioner submit that the interview
was only an eyewash and selection proceedings are vitiated.
2025:KER:8963
12. It may be noted that the petitioner was called for
the interview. The Selection Committee has verified the
documents relating to the petitioner. The 3 rd respondent
would submit that the petitioner failed to produce requisite
documents relating to his age and preferential claim. The
petitioner was not qualified in the interview. Therefore, he
was not selected.
13. The petitioner has not brought out anything to
show that the interview and selection proceedings are
vitiated in any manner. The petitioner has not alleged or
established any bias by the Selection Committee. The
petitioner has not produced any documents to show that
temporary Office Attendants have a preferential right for
appointment to the exclusion of all others.
In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ
petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/03.02.2025
2025:KER:8963
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44010/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL
LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
21.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
23.2.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
2.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
10.7.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE CORPORATE MANAGER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.7.23
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
2.8.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19.8.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
5.9.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
5.7.23 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE
CERTIFICATED DATED 18.7.2023 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
2025:KER:8963
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
25.07.2023 PURSUANT TO EXT P10 BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
20.11.2023 ISSUED FROM THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED
14.12.2023 ON 15.12.2023 BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.31964/ 23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P16 A COPY OF THE WRITTEN FORM OF THE
MESSAGE OF MOST REV. DR.ZACHARIA MAR
APREM METROPOLITAN
Exhibit P17 COPY OF VOICE CLIP MESSAGE PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE P16
Exhibit P17A COPY OF VIDEO CLIP (PART A)
Exhibit P17B COPY OF VIDEO CLIP (PART B)
Exhibit P17C COPY OF VIDEO CLIP (PART C)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) A true copy of the judgment dated
25.09.2017 in WPC No. 7781/2017
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the letter No.
D3/51/2023/HEDN dated 11.10.2023
