Haridas C. et al. v. Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd; Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd; Kerala Public Service Commission

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933** **WP(C).No. 822 of 2011(C)** **------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):** - **------------------------** **1. HARIDAS.C., PANDARAKATTUKALAM, KADUKKAMKUNNAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678651.** **2. V.SUBRAMANIAN, MANATHILHOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678651.** **3. SURENDRAN K.A., KADAMPADI PURAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARAP.O., PALAKKAD - 678 594.** **4. GOVINDANUNNI.N., NAYAKATHU HOUSE, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 611.** **5. BALAKRISHNAN.M., KAPPIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 592.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PERINGOLAM, KUNNAMANGALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE -673571.** **2. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, "MILMA BHAVAN", PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND,** **SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.822/2011 C** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 02/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 02/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 13/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 13/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 03/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P6: COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD DTD. 06/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.28/12/2010.** - **P8: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DTD. 01/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:** **R1(A): COPY OF NOTIFICATION DTD. 18/05/2011.** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **Kss** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.822 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[th] day of November 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection procedure to the post of Plant Attender Grade III. By an interim order dated 12/1/2011, this Court had directed respondents 1 and 2 to provisionally permit the petitioners to participate in the selection procedure for appointment to the post of Plant Attender Grade III. It was also specifically mentioned that the result of the examination, insofar as it relates to the petitioners, need not be published. The examination was conducted on 15/1/2011. 2. In a counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, it is contended that written test was conducted on 15/1/2011 and the petitioners successfully completed the written test and were called for a physical test which was to be held on 25/5/2011. They have cleared the physical test also and during verification of the documents, it is found that Govindan Unni was over aged W.P.C.No.822/2011 2 and on that ground he was not eligible for attending the interview. The remaining candidates namely C.Haridas, V.subramannian and K.A.Surendran were interviewed by the selection committee. The above three candidates were not included in the provisional rank list. The total number of candidates in the provisional rank list is 14 which included 11 candidates whose names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange. It is also contended that the petitioners were also sponsored by the Employment Exchange against a notification issued by the Employment Exchange and the petitioners were appointed in the year 2010 which is evident from Exts.P1 to P5. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioners pray that there may be a direction for publication of results. 4. It is contended by the 1[st] respondent that the prayer in this writ petition is only for permitting the petitioners to participate in the selection procedure. 5. Since already a direction had been issued by this Court permitting the petitioners to participate in the selection procedure, it is also necessary that the results should be published. Whether they are qualified for appointment or not is W.P.C.No.822/2011 3 a different matter which has to be separately considered. According to the petitioners, the only disqualification mentioned was that their names were not included in the list of candidates forwarded by the employment exchange. 6. The learned counsel relied upon judgment in **The Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao & Ors. [JT 1996(9) S.C. 638]** in order to contend that merely because their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, opportunity should not be denied for applying for an employment. The learned counsel referred paragraph 6 of the judgment which I extract below: “Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment W.P.C.No.822/2011 4 exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate are deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment, should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news-bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.” 7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case, I am of the view that an opportunity should have been granted for the petitioners to participate in the selection W.P.C.No.822/2011 5 procedure and therefore having already permitted them to participate in the selection procedure, it is all the more necessary that the results are to be published and their names considered for the selection. Writ petition is therefore allowed. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// W.P.C.No.822/2011 6 W.P.C.No.822/2011 7 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011