Biju K.T. v. Union of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 5020 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BIJU K.T., AGED 46 YEARS S/O. THILAKAN, KANNANGANAT HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU, ERNAKULAM-682 508** **BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO SHIPPING, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **2 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATA BHAVAN, A-BLOCK, G.P.O COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110 023.** - **3 COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, P.O. BAG NO. 1653, PERUMANOOR P.O, KOCHI-682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **4 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN SHIPYARD, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 015.** - **5 DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS), COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 015.** - **6 M.D. VARGHESE, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS), AND HEAD CSR OF COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 015.** W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 2 **BY ADVS. R1 & R2 SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R3 TO R5 - SRI. P. GOPINATH MENON (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R6 - SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 3 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents 1, 2 and 4 to conduct an enquiry on Exts.P9 to P11 representations submitted by the petitioner and to direct the 4[th] respondent to submit a report regarding Exts.P3 and P4 fake Certificates produced by the 6[th] respondent to secure employment in the 3[rd] respondent, i.e., the Cochin Shipyard Limited, Kerala. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. According to the petitioner, petitioner is a social worker and he and his friend submitted several complaints against the illegal appointment of the 6[th] respondent in the 3[rd] respondent establishment, secured on the basis of fake Degree Certificate and Post Graduate Certificate, to the post of Executive Trainee in the Personnel Department of Cochin Shipyard. When an information was sought under the Right to Information Act, the Secretary of the Cochin Shipyard informed that the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of Executive Trainee in the Personnel Department of Cochin Shipyard Limited is Degree from a recognized University and two years Master Degree from a recognized University/Institute. W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 4 3. On the information sought for by the petitioner, the Degree Certificate and Post Graduate Degree Certificate submitted by the 6[th] respondent were issued to the petitioner, and according to the petitioner, the Degree Certificate, i.e., Ext.P3 is signed by the Rector and Principal of the Institute and Ext.P4 is issued by the Rajasthan University, Jaipur to one “Virghise M.D.” and not in the name of “Varghese M.D.”. It is also submitted that, under the Right to Information Act, the University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India issued a reply informing that the Degree Certificate issued by the Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Institute of Philosophy and Religion, Pune does not appears in the list of Universities maintained by the UGC under Sec.2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, the case projected by the petitioner is that, the Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Pontifical Institute of Philosophy and Religion is not recognized by any University or not recognized by the UGC, and the Institute is a Private Institute. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of the 6[th] respondent is illegal and arbitrary, liable to be interfered with by this Court. W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 5 4. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent, refuting the allegations put forth by the petitioner. Primarily, it is contended that, the writ petition is not maintainable under law, since the petitioner has no manner of _locus standi_ to challenge the appointment of the 6[th] respondent. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the 6[th] respondent was appointed in the year 1984 as an Executive Trainee on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the 3[rd] respondent for making such an appointment. So also, it is contended that, no public interest litigation can lie in a service matter, as is held by the apex court in ' _**Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Others**_ ' [(2010) 9 SCC 655]. 5. The 6[th] respondent has also filed a detailed statement, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is submitted thereunder that petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and it was on the basis of the documents submitted by the 6[th] respondent to meet the requirements in accordance with the public advertisement made by the 3[rd] respondent. It is also submitted that, petitioner is due to retire on 31.05.2019. The 6[th] respondent has also pointed out that the writ petition is not W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 6 maintainable under law, and the appointment was made by the 3[rd] respondent after verifying the Certificates produced by the 6[th] respondent, and therefore, there is no substance in the contention advanced by the petitioner 35 years after the appointment of the 6[th] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent establishment. It is also submitted by learned counsel that Ext.P3 certificate issued by the Institute of Philosophy and Religion, Pune was accepted by the Rajasthan University and petitioner pursued his studies for Post Graduation in the Rajasthan University and has secured Ext.P4 certificate. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent is that, petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned CGC and the respective counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and 6, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 7. Taking into account the contentions put forth by the respective parties, it is clear that 6[th] respondent was appointed in the 3[rd] respondent establishment in the year 1984. Thirty-five years have W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 7 elapsed since the appointment and the 6[th] respondent is due to retire on 31.05.2019. Moreover, the writ petition is not maintainable under law and the petitioner is not entitled to secure the reliefs sought for, for consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and also to secure any direction to the 4[th] respondent to conduct any enquiry and submit a report. Admittedly, the issue is a service matter and the petitioner has no manner of relationship with the appointment made by the 3[rd] respondent. Petitioner was never a contestant to the post. Moreover, the contentions raised are highly belated, since 35 years have elapsed after the appointment. It is also clear from the documents produced by the petitioner that the 6[th] respondent has secured Post Graduate Degree from the Rajasthan University and the petitioner has no case that such a certificate is fake one. To put it differently, Ext.P3 Degree Certificate was accepted by the Rajasthan University and the petitioner pursued his studies for the PG course in the said University, and therefore, it can only be presumed that Ext.P3 Degree was acceptable to the said University, enabling the 6[th] respondent to pursue his studies in the said University. Moreover, as contended by learned counsel W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 8 for the respondents, the writ petition cannot be sustained under law, especially in view of the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Hari Bansh Lal case'**_ referred to above. The writ petition lacks bonafides, merit and truth, and therefore, the same is dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2019, seeking to amend the writ petition by incorporating a prayer to issue a writ of _quo warranto_ against respondent No.6, directing him to vacate the office of the Chief General Manager (Industrial Relations) and Head, CSR of Cochin Shipyard Ltd. In view of the findings rendered in the judgment, the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner is dismissed by a separate order. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** St/22.05.2019. W.P.(C) No.5020 of 2019 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.10.2017 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE COCHIN SHIPYARD DATED 12.3.2018.** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENTS OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE UGC DATED 12.10.2018. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WIKIPEDIA REGARDING THE JNANA-DEEPA, VIDYAPEETH. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.10.2018. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.05.2018. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2019. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2019. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2019. EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD FOR THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P11.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/-