Kerala High Court
C. Krishnankutty Nair vs Principal Secretary on 29 October, 2025
WA 2502 of 2025
1
2025:KER:80587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2502 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.10753
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
C. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR
AGED 65 YEARS
( PETITIONER AND PARTY-IN-PERSON) S/O CHELLAPPAN
PILLAI, RESIDING AT SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN, KIZHAVOOR,
MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691577
BY ADV C. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELAPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 WOMEN CHILD WELFARE DIRECTOR
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, ICPS, POOJAPURA
P.O:8222; THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
3 SHEBIN A S
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, C2 SECTION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAP,URAM., PIN - 695012
4 NISHAD
PROGRAMME OFFICER, WOMEN AND CHILD DIRECTORATE,
POOJAPPURA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM( TEMPORARY STAFF),
PIN - 695012
5 CHANDRAPRASAD K K
LAW OFFICER, WOMEN AND CHILD DIRECTORATE, POOJAPPURA
PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (NOW WORKING AS LAW OFFICER
INCOLLECTORATE,ALAPPUZHA), PIN - 695012
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2025, THE
COURT ON 29.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA 2502 of 2025
2
2025:KER:80587
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
This appeal has been filed with a delay of 69 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 out to condone the
delay. Hence, C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay is allowed.
2. The present Writ Appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed in WP(C)
No.10753/2025, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein has been
dismissed.
3. The appellant had filed the Writ Petition praying for the
following reliefs.
"1. To dismiss the Respondent 3, 4 and 5 immediately as they have
worked against their responsibilities as Government servants and
acted in conspiracy to avoid to get a job for a citizen.
2. To appoint the petitioner and party-in-person in the vacancy of
Aswathy Viswan who has been terminated by Government.
3. Dispense with the production of translation of documents in
vernacular language.
4. Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant has an
experience of about 10 years in Integrated Child Development Project and had
gathered experience in evaluating and analysing behavior of children. The
appellant had also 27 years of experience in the Social Justice
Department/Women & Child Care Department. The 3 rd respondent has
WA 2502 of 2025
2025:KER:80587
intentionally rejected the appellant's application. The appellant submitted
another application and the Law Department gave the legal opinion and opined
that the model rules will apply to the State till the State frames rules for the
purpose. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents 3 to 5 committed
misconduct and malpractice and acted dishonestly and therefore, he could not be
offered a job. Thereafter, a ranklist was published and the appellant was placed
at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. One employee namely Aswathy Viswan was
terminated and since the appellant being first in the waiting list ought to have
been appointed as he was fully eligible to be appointed as per the rules.
Respondents 3 to 5 deliberately quoted the model rules of 2016 inorder to reject
the candidature of the appellant. Therefore, respondents 3 to 5 are liable to be
dismissed from service. The learned Single Judge without examining as to
whether respondents 3 to 5 have misled the appellant, has dismissed the Writ
Petition. In fact, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed respondents 3
to 5 from service.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant had approached this Court
earlier as well challenging his non-selection and alleging irregularities in the
selection of one Mr.Alan M Alexander. The Writ Petition No.21014/2022 was
dismissed. He preferred WA No.1737/2024 and the Division Bench as per
judgment dated 18.02.2025, quashed the appointment of Mr.Alan M Alexander
and ordered the appellant to be appointed as member of the Kollam Child Welfare
WA 2502 of 2025
2025:KER:80587
Committee. The learned Single Judge also observed from the counter affidavit
filed by the 1st respondent that based on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court, the Government has nominated the appellant as member of the Child
Welfare Committee, Kollam as per Ext.R1(d) Government order. Therefore, the
Writ Petition was dismissed.
6. The present Writ Appeal has been filed basically for issuance
of writ of quo warranto, though not specifically prayed to the effect that the
respondents 3 to 5 have misinterpreted the rules thereby denying employment to
the appellant and therefore, they may be removed from service. Normally, writ of
quo warranto is issued only when the legal right of a person to hold a public
office is without jurisdiction and that if the person is not entitled to the office,
the writ can be issued to remove them. The appellant seeks removal of
respondents 3 to 5 not on the allegation that they do not have any legal right to
hold the public office, but having misinterpreted the provisions of the rules due
to which the appellant was not appointed on the concerned post and they may be
punished by terminating their services. Therefore, Writ Appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for parties on both sides.
8. We would not like to delve into the merits of the case in view
of the fact that in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) No.21014/2022 as well as
WA No.1737/2024, the appellant has already been nominated by the Government
as member of the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam. Therefore, we are not
WA 2502 of 2025
2025:KER:80587
inclined to entertain the Writ Appeal. Moreover, such directions to remove the
person who has every legal right to hold the office merely because of the lapse on
their part regarding interpretation of the rule or not following the procedure,
this Court cannot give any directions. However, the appellant would be free to
approach the competent authority, if at all he has any grievance.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Writ Petition. Accordingly, this
Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Nsd
WA 2502 of 2025
2025:KER:80587
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 COPY OF JUDGMENT THE JUDGMENT IN RP NO.1007
OF 2025 DATED 27/08/2025
