Kerala High Court
B. Jayachandran vs The Kerala Minerals And Metals Limited on 12 June, 2025
WP(C) NO.25303/2015 1
2025:KER:41232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO.25303 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
B. JAYACHANDRAN
S/O.BRAHMANANDAN, BRAHMA BHAVANAM,
VADUTHALA, PANMANA, PUTHENCHANDA PO,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY
SRI.T.R.MANU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA 691 583, KOLLAM, KERALA.
2 P.H.KURIAN
THE CHAIRMAN
THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD,
SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA 691 583, KOLLAM, KERALA.
3 P.MACHAEL VETHA SIROMONY
MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS
LTD, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA 691 583,
KOLLAM, KERALA.
4 INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY- 690001.
WP(C) NO.25303/2015 2
2025:KER:41232
BY ADV.
SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS
LIMITED, R1 to R3
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25303/2015 3
2025:KER:41232
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025
Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition inter alia seeking the
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to
permanently employ him to the post of junior worker or as sweeper
cum ward boy and to award him compensation, including back
wages and other benefits from the year 1989 onwards, during which
he was purportedly kept out of service by the 1 st respondent.
2. Petitioner's contentions in brief are as follows:
The 1st respondent M/s.Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. is a
State owned Company carrying on the business of extraction and
utilisation of mineral wealth found along the sea coast of Kollam -
Alappuzha Districts of the State. In the year 1979, land had been
acquired for the 1st respondent paying a nominal compensation, but
offering first priority in employment to one member from each family
evicted as part of the acquisition. Petitioner claims that his father
was one of the evictees insofar as his business was in the acquired
2025:KER:41232
land. Petitioner relies on Ext.P3 identity card issued to his father by
the Special Tahsildar (LA) as well as Ext.P3 (2) which is stated to be
a power of attorney issued by his father authorizing his son viz., the
petitioner to seek benefits as per the status disclosed by Ext.P3
identity card. The 1st respondent did not keep the promise of
recruiting evictees for employment. Ext.P1 letter had been issued by
the Industries Department of Government of Kerala inter alia
directing the 1st respondent to select candidates from among the
preferential categories based on an order of priority whereby first the
evictees, followed by the persons whose land had been taken and
then the persons belonging to or surrounding panchayats who had
been working in the project site were to be given priority while
recruiting to various posts in the 1st respondent Company. Ext.P1
had been considered by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and this
Court had directed the 1st respondent to consider making
appointments on the basis of the same. In the year 1989 though
petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 letter dated 22.12.1989 by the
Titanium Employees Recreation Club, Quilon, calling him for an
interview for temporary engagement as a Club boy, two other
2025:KER:41232
candidates were given employment, among whom only one person
was from the evictee family. Later, the said two persons were given
permanent employment in the factory of the 1 st respondent. In the
year 2000, though petitioner was called for an interview to the post
of sweeper cum ward boy, vide Ext.P5 letter dated 23.10.2000, he
was not employed. Petitioner had then filed O.P.No.7183 of 2003
before this Court inter alia pointing out that there were existing
vacancies in the 1st respondent and seeking appointment therein.
The said O.P. was disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P6 judgment
inter alia directing the 1st respondent to consider whether they are
proposing to fill up the existing vacancies pointed out by the
petitioner and the decision thereon shall be intimated to the
petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment. In furtherance of the said direction, Ext.P7 letter was
issued to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent wherein it had been
inter alia pointed out that a valid select list to the post of Worker
Grade II was in existence containing names of 115 number of
candidates selected from persons who are working as casual
workers in the Company for a long period and that in view of the
2025:KER:41232
existence of a valid select list, there is no possibility for conducting
another selection to the post of Worker Grade II at that point of time.
It was also informed that in the selections that are conducted directly
by the Company to the different posts, preference was being given
to evictees and other preferential categories as per the directions
issued in the said respect and that whenever a recruitment is made
for any available vacancy, the same was being notified locally in
order to enable the preferential category candidates to apply directly
without their names being sponsored by Employment Exchange and
that they will be given due preference in the selection. Petitioner was
called upon to watch the notifications issued by the 1 st respondent
inviting applications for filling up vacancies, if any, and to apply
against the same subject to him possessing the notified
requirements. Thereafter Ext.P7 interview letter dated 16.04.2003
was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner in furtherance of
his application to the notification with respect to 110 existing and
expected 57 posts of junior workers wherein it had been decided to
give preference to the evictees, who are evictee card holders in their
own name or their parents name. Petitioner was called for the
2025:KER:41232
interview and he had cleared the eligibility test. It is alleged that on
account of the intervention of various trade unions and for other
extraneous reasons, the said selection process had been cancelled
without assigning any explanation. In reply to an RTI application
preferred by the petitioner, he had been informed vide Ext.P9 that
preferential categories including evictees who are possessing the
required qualifications, experience, etc. prescribed for the vacant
post will be given preference in appointment than direct applicants
provided other things remain the same. Thereafter Ext.P10
notification was issued wherein 167 vacancies of junior worker post
had been notified and it was stated that preference will be given to
evict the card holders in their own name or in their parents name.
Since no steps were taken in the said respect, petitioner had
submitted a letter inquiring about the status of his application and he
was informed by Ext.P11 letter dated 20.06.2013 indicating the
status of recruitment. Thereafter, vide Ext.P12 letter dated
13.11.2013 informing him that prima facie his application had been
found eligible for consideration for selection process and that the
same will be considered along with other eligible applicants.
2025:KER:41232
Petitioner was thereafter issued Ext.P13 letter, calling upon him to
attend a written examination for the appointment to the post of junior
worker. However, subsequently, vide Ext.P14 press release dated
28.11.2014, it was informed that the written examination had been
postponed. Petitioner contends that from what had transpired so far,
his hope that he will be able to secure an employment with the 1 st
respondent on account of his status of being a preferential category
as an evictee from the initial land acquisition process by the 1 st
respondent had been lost. He had been denied his right to secure
employment because of the arbitrary decisions of the management
of the 1st respondent thereby causing miscarriage of justice.
Petitioner had therefore filed this Writ Petition seeking intervention of
this Court to direct immediate appointment of the petitioner to the
post of junior worker or in the alternative as sweeper cum ward boy
without following additional requirement of written examination etc.
which are to be met by other general candidates. Petitioner claims
the said preferential treatment on account of the volume of aspirants
and the limited number of vacancies existing. He contends that he
falls in a separate class for the selection purpose, being a
2025:KER:41232
preferential candidate as an evictee. Petitioner admits that he had
been temporarily working with the 1 st respondent since 2003 and the
said status, he claims will substantiate his claim against about
15000 general candidates.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3,
producing therewith Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) which are respectively
copies of a Government Order dated 01.01.1988 and a judgment
dated 11.03.2011 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32445 of 2008. It is
contended by the respondents 1 to 3 that the averments of the
petitioner based on Ext.P1 letter are not fully correct and that the
petitioner had ignored the existence of Ext.R1 (a) Government
Order, wherein it had been categorically stated that in the selection
to the post of workers in the respondent company, preference is
given other things being equal, to the eligible candidates belonging
to the different categories mentioned therein. Ext.P1 letter, it is
contented only clarifies that when priority is given, persons falling
under the evicted category shall be given priority over the other
category. As regards the contentions of the petitioner concerning
the vacancies for sweeper cum ward boy, it is submitted by the 1 st
2025:KER:41232
respondent in the counter affidavit that it had initiated recruitment
process to fill 167 vacancies of junior worker by notification on
22.06.2010 exclusively from preferential category and the said
recruitment process was quashed by this Court vide Ext.R1(b)
judgment wherein it was held that recruitment cannot be exclusively
from preferential category and that preferential category candidates
can be given preference if all other parameters were found equal.
This Court had in the said judgment directed issuance of fresh
notification inviting application from all eligible persons and after
receipt of applications make selection from them by awarding marks
for various components of their qualification, experience etc. and
drawing up a rank list in which if persons belonging to the four
categories secure same marks as that of others, then alone give
priority to the four preferential categories of persons. In the light of
the said judgment, it is contented by the 1 st respondent that the
petitioner's prayer for appointing him against permanent post solely
based on the fact that he belongs to the preferential category is not
sustainable and that the judgment of this Court had unequivocally
directed that after receiving applications from the public, preference
2025:KER:41232
can be given only when such candidates belonging to the four
preferential category secure the same marks as that of general
candidates. Hence, all the claims of the petitioner on the basis that
he deserves appointment based on preference alone are
unsustainable. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit of the 1 st
respondent that in compliance with the direction in the judgment of
this Court, the company had re-notified the 167 vacancies, giving
opportunity to general candidates to participate in the selection
process and in the meanwhile, the vacancies in the unskilled
category was managed by engaging Land Acquired People's
Association (LAPA) which is a Co-operative society as a manpower
supply contractor. The said setup was initially meant to be a stop-
gap arrangement to meet the requirement of unskilled workers until
the recruitment of the permanent positions is done and the LAPA
workers are engaged in the unskilled works of the 1 st respondent
company on the basis of the contract between the Company and the
LAPA Co-operative Society. The petitioner was one among those
who got employment through LAPA Engagement since 2011. It is
also stated in the counter affidavit that when the company
2025:KER:41232
proceeded to fill up the vacancies in compliance with the direction
of this Court, agitations were initiated by the persons who were
engaged through LAPA Society, wherein the petitioner is a member,
and the selection process had to be postponed. Finally, after the
meetings held under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Industries
of the Government of Kerala, it was decided that the persons
who are presently employed in the 1 st respondent through LAPA
would be engaged as direct contract workers of the 1 st respondent
and in the said meeting a list of 743 workers engaged by LAPA
were identified and it was decided that 743 workers will be
engaged on contract basis by the 1st respondent for a minimum
period of 18 days per month. The said decision sought to benefit
only those persons who are engaged on a contract basis at the
relevant time. Accordingly, a live list was prepared by the LAPA
Society consisting of persons who were engaged at that time.
Based on the list of 733 persons were appointed. The petitioner is
one among the 733 persons thus appointed as direct contract
workers. As a result, the petitioner is now working in the Company
as DCW. As per the present arrangement 642 DCWs, including the
2025:KER:41232
petitioner, were working on a rotation basis, ensuring them a
minimum 23 confirmed working days in a month to each worker. The
respondents have in the counter affidavit refuted that they have
denied the right to livelihood of the petitioner. It has been pointed
out that the petitioner by virtue of his appointment as a direct
contract employee in the 1st respondent Company is earning a fair
livelihood and the Company is spending Rs.1,480/- per day as daily
wages to the petitioner which together comes to Rs.34,040/- per
month including statutory liabilities for his 23 days of contract
engagement as an unskilled worker.
4. Additional counter affidavit dated 28.11.2024 has been
filed by the respondents producing Ext.R1 (C). A second additional
counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents on
02.01.2025. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating additional
facts and raising additional contentions
5. Heard Sri.Yash Thomas Mannully, Advocate for the
petitioner, Smt.Latha Anand, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and
Smt.Rekha C. Nair, Senior Government Pleader for the 4 th
respondent.
2025:KER:41232
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions
in line with the pleadings and placed reliance on the dictum laid
down in Union of India and others v. K.V.Jankiraman and others
[AIR 1991 SC 2010] to substantiate the prayer for back wages and
other benefits from 1989 onwards and to buttress the contention that
the case of the petitioner is one in which the employee has been
ready and willing to work but was kept away from the work by the
authorities. The normal rule of no work, no pay is hence not
applicable in the case at hand, and the petitioner is hence entitled to
back wages and other benefits from 1989 onwards. Reliance is also
placed on the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Krishnan R. v.
State of Kerala and others [W.P.(C) No.13953 of 2021 dated
05.06.2025] wherein the 1st respondent is a party and it had been
held that the petitioner therein is entitled to be engaged as an
employee and a direction was issued to the 1 st respondent to give
an order of appointment to the petitioner therein within one month.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents,
relying on the statements in the counter affidavits and additional
affidavits, submitted that the petitioner has not made out a case for
2025:KER:41232
granting reliefs sought for in the WP (C ). Reliance is placed on the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees
State Insurance Corporation and another v. Dr.Vinay Kumar
and others [(2022) 18 SCC 358] wherein it was held that the
cardinal principle to be borne in mind is that a candidate who has
applied to a post does not have a legal right to insist that the
recruitment process set in motion has to be carried to its logical end.
Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the
candidate with such a right. It was clarified that this is different from
holding that the employer is free to act arbitrarily. A direction which
was given by the High Court to conclude the recruitment within 45
days is held to be untenable. In the said case, the court had also
considered the question whether the direction could be given to
proceed with the recruitment process by giving a peremptory
direction. It was held that in the absence of an illegal right with a
candidate who has merely made an application, no such direction
could be issued. The learned counsel also submitted that the
reliance on the dictum in Rajesh Krishnan R. (supra) is not
sustainable insofar as the same had been set aside vide judgment
2025:KER:41232
dated 25.07.2022 in W.A.No.1591 of 2021 by a Division Bench of
this Court. It was thus prayed that the Writ Petition is not sustainable
in law and is only to be set aside.
8. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered
the respective contentions put forth. The precedents placed have
also been perused.
9. I note that this Court had in Ext.R1(b) judgment rendered
with respect to the selection to the post of junior worker in the 1 st
respondent, to which post the petitioner too is now an aspirant and
is claiming preferential treatment being an evictee, held as follows:
"4. On a larger perspective, I am of the opinion that
when appointment to public employment is confined
to a particular section of the people, on the basis of
their land having been acquired, they having been
evicted, they having been worked in the contract site
of the company and they having undergone
apprenticeship in the company, would violate the
fundamental rights of the candidates at large and
who are also eligible to compete for the post. Kerala
is a state which carries the burden of unusually large
number, of which unemployed, skilled and unskilled
youth, whose tribe is increasing day by day.
Therefore, if in public employment they are excluded
in favour of the four specified categories of
candidates mentioned above, it would prima facie be
violative of the fundamental rights of those
unemployed persons at large under Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. In fact persons whose
lands have been acquired were paid compensation
2025:KER:41232
for the land, and there is no legal provision which
enables the government and the company to reserve
such employment to them or any of the other three
categories mentioned in the notification. But in view
of the fact that in several other judgments this Court
had considered the preference given to such
persons at least in the category of evictees and
persons whose lands have been acquired and did
not disapprove of the same, especially since none
had approached this Court, Challenge the
notification on that ground. I am not now inclined to
declare that such preferences would be
unconstitutional.
5. But that does not ipso facto mean that
appointment can be exclusively restricted to four
categories of candidates to the total exclusion of
others who are also eligible to compete for the said
post. In fact, in all the decisions relied on by the
petitioners themselves, this is exactly what this Court
has held. This Court has categorically held that such
preferences can be given only when all other
conditions are equal...."
I am in respectful agreement with the above said reasoning of the
learned Judge. Further, I note that the allegation of the petitioner
that the 1st respondent Company had failed to offer him employment
is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances. Petitioner has not
denied the specific statement in the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st
respondent that by virtue of his appointment as a direct contract
employee in the 1st respondent company, he is earning a fair
livelihood and that the 1st respondent Company is spending
2025:KER:41232
Rs.1,480/- per day as daily wages to the petitioner which together
comes to Rs.34,040/- per month including statutory liabilities for his
23 days of contract engagement as an unskilled worker. As regards
the claim of the petitioner for permanent employment in the 1 st
respondent company, the selection process for the same can be
conducted only in accordance with the directions in Ext.R1(b)
judgment of this Court. The petitioner, though he may belong to one
among the four preferential categories who could be considered for
employment, the same does not entitle him to seek permanent
employment in the respondent company on the said basis alone,
overlooking the directions in the said judgment. The contention put
forth by the petitioner in the W.P.(C) that he is entitled to preferential
treatment as he falls in a separate class for selection purposes,
being a preferential candidate as an evictee.
10. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner himself has
admitted that he had been temporarily working with the 1 st
respondent since 2003. His contention that his status as a
temporary employee substantiates his claim against the claim of the
other general candidates, which he terms as 15000 in number, is
2025:KER:41232
unsustainable in law. Petitioner has been presently employed by the
1st respondent as per the alternative arrangement evolved after
deliberations with the concerned unions and organisation, for a
period of 23 days every month, thereby receiving a monthly income
of around Rs.34,040/-. Hence, the contention that there has been a
denial of livelihood to the petitioner by the respondents by refusing
permanent appointment is unsustainable. Further, coming to the
merits of the relief sought no legal entitlement for permanent
appointment to the post of junior worker or as sweeper cum ward
boy has been pointed out or substantiated by the petitioner in the
Writ Petition. Mere allegations regarding the arbitrariness on the part
of the 1st respondent in not granting permanent employment to the
petitioner in the said post/s or regarding the alleged delay in the said
respect will not suffice to legally sustain such a claim. There has to
be legally tenable proof regarding such entitlement, supported by
evidence regarding its arbitrary denial. No reliable proof in the said
respect has been presented by the petitioner. Though some veiled
contentions regarding discrimination had been made in the
pleadings, the same have not been supported by any details or
2025:KER:41232
evidence. Except for alleging that certain unnamed individuals have
been employed overlooking the better claim of the petitioner, no
further details regarding the alleged discrimination have been stated
or substantiated. It is the specific case of the 1 st respondent, on the
other hand, that the notification put forth for giving appointment to
the four categories of persons, including evictees, had been struck
down by this Court as illegal and unsustainable. The said judgment
had not been challenged, and the findings therein had become final.
As held in Vinay Kumar (supra) merely because the petitioner had
appeared for an examination, he does not acquire a legal right to
insist that the recruitment process set in motion has to be carried to
its logical end. Further, as rightly opined by the learned Single Judge
in the portion of the judgment quoted above, Kerala is a State which
carries the burden of an unusually large number of youth who are
unemployed, both skilled and unskilled, and their number is
increasing day by day. The petitioner, who has been employed with
the 1st respondent since 2003 and is presently deriving a monthly
income of around Rs.34,040/-, cannot, in the absence of any
specific legal entitlement, maintain a Writ Petition seeking
2025:KER:41232
permanent employment with the 1st respondent.
11. In view of the above, I find that the petitioner is not
entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this W.P.(C) and the same
is only to be dismissed. This shall not, however, preclude the
petitioner from applying for appointment to the permanent posts in
the 1st respondent as and when notified by the 1st respondent and
the respondents from considering such applications, if any, in
accordance with law and based on the eligibility and qualifications of
the petitioner.
W.P.(C) is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:41232
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25303/2015
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF HT ELETTER DATED 12.1.1989
FROM THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.5.2003
IN OP NO.31977 OF 2003 AND OP NO.278 OF
2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED IN
THE NAME OF PETITIONERS FATHER ALONG
WITH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED
22.12.1989
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED
23.10.2000
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2003
IN OP NO.7183 OF 2003
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.4.2003
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
22.6.2010 ALONG WITH THE INTERVIEW
LETTER DATED 6.1.2011
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI
APPLICATION DATED 13.3.2013
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
4.3.2013
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY FO THE REPLY DATED 20.6.2013
INDICATING THE STATUS OF THE RECRUITMENT
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.11.2013
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED
11.11.2014
2025:KER:41232
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED
28.11.2014
RESPONDENTS'
EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 (a) True copy of the G.O. (Rt) No.11/88/ID
dated 01.01.1988.
Exhibit R1 (b) True copy of the Judgment dated
11.03.2011 in WP(c) No.32445 of 2008.
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the appointment letter
No.TP/PD/R-39/02 dated 01.11.2002 issued
by to Sri.P.Anil
