[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rasheed Kuttikkadan vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27456 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RASHEED KUTTIKKADAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE
KURIKKALAMAD, VIA AREACODE
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.B.SURESH
SRI.RANJAN SURESH
SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR
SRI.GOUTHAM SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS ANNEX 1,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER
THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121
4 FAWAS,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, PARAMBAN HOUSE,
NSS COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676122
2026:KER:90
W.P.(C) No.27456/2025
:2:
5 ASSAIN C.
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE,
NSS COLLEGE P.O, MANJERI
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676122
BY ADVS.
SRI.K. MOHANAKANNAN
SRI.R.RANJITH
SMT.ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 28.10.2025 AND THE COURT ON 06.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:90
W.P.(C) No.27456/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.27456 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner seeks to direct the Manjeri
Municipality to issue immediate orders appointing him as
Substitute Sanitation Worker.
2. The petitioner states that he has registered
with the Employment Exchange. The petitioner was
nominated by the Employment Exchange for selection and
appointment to the post of Substitute Sanitation Worker in
Manjeri Municipality. The petitioner attended the interview
conducted by the Municipality. Though the petitioner
2026:KER:90
performed well in the interview, he was not selected for
appointment. Respondents 4 and 5, who are less
meritorious, however, were selected for appointment.
3. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent
was appointed purportedly in pursuance of the judgment of
this Court. Selection made without recourse to Employment
Exchange is illegal and unsustainable, contends the
petitioner. The methodology of interview followed by the
Municipality is also illegal. The petitioner therefore seeks to
quash the illegal appointments and to direct the Manjeri
Municipality to issue immediate orders appointing the
petitioner as Substitute Sanitation Worker.
4. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit.
The 4th respondent submitted that pursuant to the interview
conducted by the Municipality, a rank list was prepared. The
rank list contained candidates sponsored by the Employment
2026:KER:90
Exchange as well as employees temporarily working under
the Municipality for long years. The 4th respondent was
subjected to selection process pursuant to the orders of this
Court.
5. The 4th respondent has been appointed after
due process of selection. In view of Section 224 of the
Kerala Municipalities Act, power is vested with the Municipal
Council to make appointments of Substitute Sanitation
Workers. The writ petition is therefore without any merit,
contended the 4th respondent.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
2026:KER:90
7. The petitioner was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange for selection for appointment to the
post of Substitute Sanitation Worker in Manjeri Municipality.
The petitioner belongs to Muslim community and therefore is
entitled to Muslim reservation quota.
8. After the interview, the Municipality has
drawn a consolidated mark list. In the category 'Muslim' for
which there are two vacancies, respondents 4 and 5 were
ranked 1 and 2, with marks 89 and 84 respectively. The
petitioner was placed at rank No.7 only. Therefore, going by
Ext.P2 rank list for Muslim category, the petitioner cannot
claim a superior right for appointment over respondents 4
and 5.
9. As regards the requirement of sponsorship
by the Employment Exchange, candidates who have been
working as temporary Sanitation Workers for long period in
2026:KER:90
the Municipality were also directed to be considered for
appointment. It is after interviewing the candidates
sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the temporary
workers working in the Municipality that the select list was
prepared.
In the said circumstances of the case, I do
not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is
hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/27.12.2025
2026:KER:90
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 27456 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.H1-
17942/2020 DATED 18.04.2023 FOLLOWING
LETTER NO.19/2019/568/0 DATED
13/12/2022 OF THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT
OFFICER.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED MARK
LIST ISSUED FOLLOWING APPLICATION
UNDER RTI
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPOINTEES
UNDER MUSLIM QUOTA DT 20.6.25 ISSUED
BY THE MUNICIPALITY ON APPLICATION
UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C)
NO.15500/2023 DATED 04.06.2025
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE HONORABLE HIGH
COURT ORDER WP(C)NO.1024/2022 DATED
15, SEPTEMBER 2022
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT
PETITION(C) NO.15142/2023 DATED 4-6-
Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
04-06-2025 IN WRIT PETITION(C)
Exhibit R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
2-6-2025 IN WRIT PETITION(C)
