Kerala High Court
Sherin Wilson vs Kochi Metro Rail Limited, Represented ... on 17 October, 2025
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:76859
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 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.10213 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SHERIN WILSON, AGED 33 YEARS
D/O A. J. WILSON, RESIDING AT ARTHADATHIL HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P. O.,
KANJIRAKKAD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683543
BY ADVS. SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN; SMT.ANJANA K.
SMT.AYANA UNNIKRISHNAN; SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN
SMT.SOORYA M.
RESPONDENT/S:
KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JLN METRO STATION, 4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS. SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH; SHRI.REGI MATHEW
SHRI.TOMY CHACKO; SHRI.JOSEPH M.L.
SHRI.VANDAMEN ROX ANTONY K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 08.07.2025, THE COURT ON 17.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:76859
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High
Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C)
No.10213/2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was one of
the applicants for the post of Assistant Manager (Public Relations) E2
level in Kochi Metro Rail Corporation in pursuance to the notification
issued by the KMRL on 24.09.2024 inviting applications from qualified
candidates for participation for selection to the post of Assistant
Manager (Public Relations). The appellant challenged the said
notification on the ground that it is in violation of the relevant Service
Rules, namely the Kochi Metro Rail Limited Recruitment and Conditions
of Service Rules, which prescribe the qualifications for the post of
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
Assistant Manager (E2 level). As per the Rules, five years of experience
after acquiring the minimum qualification is required for direct
recruitment. The appellant's grievance is that the prescribed five years
of experience does not specify that such experience must be in the public
sector. Therefore, the requirement of experience in the public sector or
Government, as stated in the notification, is inconsistent with the
relevant Rules, and hence, the notification is liable to be set aside.
3. The learned Single Judge, relying on the submissions of the
learned counsel for KMRL, noted that the appellant has only 2½ years of
experience working as an Assistant Manager in KMRL. Her experience
with 'Asianet News' and 'Plak Motion Studio' was held to be irrelevant
for the post of Assistant Manager or Public Relations Officer. Regarding
the 2½ years of experience, Ext.P7 shows that the appellant worked as a
'Broadcast Journalist' with Asianet News from 04.04.2016 to 30.09.2020,
and as 'Content Head' at Plak Motion Studio from 01.10.2020 to
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
18.09.2021. Therefore, the appellant does not possess the requisite
experience. The appellant could not challenge the notification on the
ground that it contravenes the relevant recruitment Rules. The Court
found that the notification is not contrary to the Rules, as experience is
required in the relevant field, which the appellant lacks. Accordingly,
the writ petition was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the notification issued by
KMRL for the post of Public Relations Officer on a Fixed-Term Contract
(FTC), pursuant to which the appellant was duly selected, did not
mandate experience specifically in the capacity of an Assistant Manager.
The appellant was engaged in the said role and effectively discharged
her duties. The arbitrary imposition of such an experience criterion at
this stage was neither contemplated nor prescribed in the earlier
recruitment notification.
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
4.1 Secondly, it was contended that the very fact that the
appellant fulfils the requisite criteria for the post is evidenced and
acquiesced to by the actions of the respondent in appointing her and
even extending her tenure. The respondent cannot now be allowed to
arbitrarily alter the Post-Qualification Experience (PQE). The learned
Single Judge also did not consider the ratio of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court1 wherein
it is held that "recruitment process commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies".
The eligibility criteria prescribed for placement on the select list, as
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be
altered midway unless explicitly permitted by the prevailing
recruitment Rules or the terms of the advertisement. Any deviation from
2024 INSC 847
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
the originally stipulated criteria, if introduced without due authority or
in a manner that fails to uphold the fundamental tenets of fairness,
transparency, and equal opportunity, would render the recruitment
process legally unsustainable and susceptible to judicial interference.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for KMRL opposed the prayer
and submitted that the appellant was one of the candidates who applied
for the post. On scrutiny of the experience claimed by the appellant, the
Screening Committee duly noted that she had worked as a 'Broadcast
Journalist' at Asianet News and thereafter as 'Content Head' at Plak
Motion Studio. This experience did not meet the criteria notified by
KMRL, which required experience in Corporate Communications/Public
Relations functions, and therefore could not be counted. The appellant
had only 2½ years of experience in Public Relations functions/Corporate
Communications, and that too while working on a contract basis for two
years and as a consultant for six months with KMRL.
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
5.1 The present notification is for filling a regular post.
Therefore, according to the changing needs and job requirements, a
candidate is required to fulfil the eligibility criteria specified by the
public authority. There was no ambiguity in the eligibility criteria, as
demanding experience is a basic requirement for appointments to a
particular post. The contention that the earlier notification, under
which the appellant was selected, did not contain any experience criteria
is misplaced, since the earlier notification was for appointment on a
contract basis, whereas the present notification relates to permanent
employment. Therefore, such a criterion could be introduced in the
present notification.
5.2 The learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the case of
Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), since in that case, certain major changes
were incorporated after the issuance of the advertisement, which
certainly could not have been done. In the present case, only the
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
condition of experience has been added, apart from the necessary
qualification which the appellant possesses, except for experience. The
learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which does
not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
6. Heard Mr Riji Rajendran for the appellant, and Mr Antony
Mukkath learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi Metro Rail Limited.
7. Admittedly, as per Ext.P7, the experience certificate reveals
that the appellant worked as a 'Broadcast Journalist' with Asianet News
and as 'Content Head' with Plak Motion Studio, which is unrelated to the
relevant post of Assistant Manager (Public Relations) due to the
fundamentally different nature of the duties involved. The learned
Single Judge was therefore correct in concluding that the notification
does not contravene the relevant Rules, as the requirement of
experience cannot be deemed inconsistent with the Rules, nor arbitrary
WA NO. 718 OF 2025
2025:KER:76859
or illegal.
7.1 Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ
petition. Finding no merit or substance in the appeal, the same is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs. All interlocutory applications pertaining
to interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
jjj
