High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed
Case / Petition Number:WA Nos. 1626/18, 1684/2018, 1700/2018, 1854/2018, 1855/2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. R. Ramachandra Menon
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2018-10-25
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeals dismissed; the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s directions to redraw the rank list in accordance with the prescribed rules (written test marks, interview, attendance, and seniority) and extended the compliance period by two months.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Ullas D.
- Jaison V.A.
- Sanjayan K.S.
- Mohan an K.K.
Respondents
- The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.
- State of Kerala (Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture)
- Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. (Perambra Estate)
- Manu Pappachan
- Saji M.V.
- Shaju C.V.
- Hareendralal
- Sanjay
- Jaison
- Ullas D.
- MohanankK.K.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. John Varghese
Counsels for Respondents
- • Adv. N. Rajesh
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns the selection process for the post of Vehicle Helper by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. The core issue across WA Nos. 1626/18, 1684/2018, 1700/2018, 1854/2018 and 1855/2018 is whether the interview panel could grant weightage to marks obtained in the written test, even though the recruitment notification did not authorize such weightage. The writ petitions had challenged the procedure for drawing the final rank list, arguing that the Sub Committee responsible for interviews acted beyond the scope of the notification and applicable rules. The Single Judge had directed redraw of the rank list strictly in accordance with the rules, using marks from the written test, interview scores, and seniority/attendance. The Division Bench, while hearing the appeals together, upheld that the Sub Committee’s unilateral weightage was impermissible and beyond authority. It held that the rules could not be altered mid-process, distinguishing Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (which allowed raising levels of excellence but not changing the rules) and distinguishing Narula on bias grounds. The court affirmed the earlier order to redraw the rank list in line with the notification and the stipulated criteria, and extended the time for compliance by two months. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, and the matter stands remitted for re-drawing the rank list per the prescribed rules.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Rules of the game cannot be changed during the process; levels of excellence can be raised to identify the best among candidates.
- Assessment should not be vitiated by bias, malafides or arbitrariness.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants argued that the selection process was governed by the notification and existing rules; they contended that the interview panel could not grant additional weightage to written-test marks unless expressly authorized by the rules or notification. They invoked Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court to contend that while the level of excellence may be raised, the fundamental rules of the game cannot be altered mid-process, and emphasized that the weightage added by the Sub Committee was not disclosed to candidates and exceeded the authority vested in the interviewing panel. They additionally relied on A.K. Narula to argue against bias and malafides, seeking to prevent any vitiation on those grounds.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the authority to raise the level of assessment of competence exists to identify the best candidates and that the weightage is a permissible tool to achieve this objective. They argued that the recruitment notification contemplated two stages—written test and interview—and that the interview could, within the broad remit of the notification, consider overall excellence, including performance in the written test for ranking purposes. They submitted that Tej Prakash Pathak supports raising levels of excellence, and that Narula concerns bias but does not render the process invalid when raised concerns about fairness are not proved.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court | Civil Appeal No.2634/2013 | Distinguished | The court cited Tej Prakash Pathak to discuss raising levels of excellence but distinguished the present case since weightage in interview was added unilaterally without authority, not merely raising pass marks. |
| Union of India v. A.K. Narula | (2007) 11 SCC 10 | Mentioned Only | Narula was cited in discussing bias and vitiation, but the court found that the present case did not rest on bias or malafides and thus Narula’s reasoning was not controlling. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940**
**WA.No. 1684 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 10965/2015**
**...........**
**APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4, 7, 14 & 16:**
- **1 ULLAS.D, S/O. DHAMODHARAN, AGED 41, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON GROUP LATEX FACTORY, P.O. NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT THANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, NEDUMANKAV P.O., KOODAN, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689693.**
- **2 JAISON,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTHY, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON GROUP LATEX FACTORY, P.O. NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT VADAKKELAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., MARYGIRI, ERNAKULAM DT. - 683581.**
- **3 MOHANAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, VEHICLE HELPER, ATHIRAPPALLI ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O., ADICHIL, (MUKKUNNICHIRA), TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
- **4 K.S.SANJAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SUGATHAN, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, P.O. NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT ARUMURIPARAMBU, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE**
**- - RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 6, RESPONDENTS 1 3, 5, 6, 8 13, 15 & 17-20:**
- **1 V.O.RAJU, AGED 55, S/O.GEEVARGHESE UNNOONNY, VENGASSERI MELETHIL, KODUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
2
- **2 R.UDYAKUMAR, AGED 50, S/O. RAGHAVAN KURUP, OTTAPLAMVILAYIL, ANGADIKKAL NORTH P.O., KAIPATTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
- **3 P.K.RAJAN PILLAI,AGED 53, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHUPURAKKAL, KADAPRA P.O., KUMBANAND, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
- **4 T.VIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O. MADHAVA KURUP, CHEMBAKASSERIL, KANNIDA-KURUMBA KARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
- **5 NEELAMBARAN.P., AGED 54, S/O.C.KUTTY, CHARUVILAYIL, ILLAMANNOOR POST, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
- **6 JOYKUTTY PAPPI, S/O. K.K. PAPPY, KALATHOOR MELETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUVATTA, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 523.**
- **7 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.**
- **8 PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 696004.**
- **9 MANU PAPPACHAN, S/O. PAPPACHAN, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON GROUP LATEX FACTORY, P.O. NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689693.**
- **10 HAREENDRALAL, VEHICLE HELPER, OIL PALM, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683583.**
- **11 SHAIJU P.J., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683583.**
- **12 BIJU M.V., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **13 BIJU K.P., VEHICLE HELPER, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **14 SHAJI M.K., VEHICLE HELPER, PANNITHODE ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, PANNITHODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 555.**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
3
- **15 PRAKASAN K.K., VEHICLE HELPER, T.S.R. FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **16 BIJU K.P., VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., MUTHUKAD P.O., PERUVANNAMOOZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 528.**
- **17 SHIBU K.N., VEHICLE HELPER, ATHIRAPPALLI ESTATE, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **18 SHAJU C.V., VEHICLE HELPER, TSR FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **19 C.S.SHAIJU, VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., MUTHUKAD P.O., PERUVANNAMOOZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 528.**
- **20 SIBY P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, TSR FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **21 JOMY V.C., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION P.O., KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 583.**
- **22 JOY P.B., VEHICLE HELPER, CHANDANAPPILLY ESTATE, P.O. NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689693.**
**R8 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJESH**
- **R7 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018 ALONG WITH WA.1854/2018, WA.1700/2018, WA.1626/2018, WA. 1855/2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
4
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940**
**WA.No. 1854 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22117/2015**
**..........**
## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 6, 11 & 17 TO 19:**
- **1 JAISON V.A, S/O AUGUSTHY, AGED 42 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER- PRESENTLY WORKING AT KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689693, RESIDING AT VADAKKELAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA P O, MARYGIRI, ERNAKULAM DISTRCT-683581**
- **2 SANJAYAN K.S., S/O SUGATHAN, AGED 37 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689693, RESIDING AT ARUMURIPARAMBU, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**
- **3 STALIN V.V., S/O VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT NILAMBUR ESTATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RAILWAY STATION P.O.,-679330, RESIDING AT VATTOLI HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O., ADICHIL, THANDIYALKUNNU, TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
- **4 ULLAS D., S/O DHAMODHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KGN FACTORY, CHANGARAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689699, RESIDING AT THANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, NEDUMANKAV P.O., KOODAN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689693.**
- **5 MOHANAN K.K., S/O KUTTAN, AGED 54 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583, RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O. ADICHIL (MUKKUNNICHIRA), TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
5
## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5, 7 TO 10, 12 TO 16 & 20:**
- **1 E.S SURESH, S/O E R SUKU, ETHIPOKKAT HOUSE, TAPPER BLOCK NO 17, VETTILAPPARA, KERALA PLANTATION P O-683583**
- **2 P.V. RATHEESH, S/O P.K. VIJAYAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, ADIRAPILLY ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O.683581.**
- **3 N.S. DILEEP, S/O N.K. SUBRAMANYAN, NADUVATHARA HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O., MAARAMCODU, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680724.**
- **4 M.A. ANILKUMAR, S/O M.K. AYYAPPAN, MOOLAMKUDY HOUSE, PALISSERY, PADUVAPURAM P.O.-683583.**
- **5 S.V. AJAYAN, S/O S.K. VISWANATHAN, SASTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALADY PLANTATIN P.O.-683583.**
- **6 C.D. SAJAYAN, S/O C.M. DIVAKARAN, CHEMMAPPILLY HOUSE, KALADY PLANTATIN P.O.-683583.**
- **7 T.O. SHIJO, S/O T.D. OUSEPH, TOTTATHIL HOUSE, BLOCK NO.17, KALADY PLANTATIN P.O.-683583.**
- **8 V.I. BENNY, S/O V.V. ITTEERA, VALLATHUKARAN HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721.**
- **9 ELDHOSE JOSEPH, S/O K.P. JOSE, KARIYATTI HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683581.**
- **10 V.S. DAVIS, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., AMALAPURAM-683581.**
- **11 K. PRAKASH, GIRIJA MANDHIRAM, VETTILAPPARA P.O., P.C.K. QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721.**
- **12 M.L. JOBY, MANGALAM HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA P.O., P.C.K. QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721.**
- **13 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRCTOR, KOTTAYAM-696004.**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
6
- **14 MANU PAPPACHAN, S/O PAPPACHAN, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689693.**
- **15 SAJI M.V., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **16 SIBI P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **17 SHIBU K.N., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **18 JOY P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689693.**
- **19 SHYJU C.S., VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRIT-673528.**
- **20 HAREENDRALAL T.V., VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721.**
- **21 PRAKASHAN K.K., VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721.**
- **22 SHAJU C.V., VEHICLE HELPER, ATHIRAPPALLY ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **23 SHAJU P.J., VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721.**
- **24 BIJU K.P., VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRIT-673528.**
- **25 BIJU K.P., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **26 SHAJI M.K., VEHICLE HELPER, THANNITHODE STATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689699.**
- **27 JOMY V.C., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER R13 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJESH**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018 ALONG WITH WA.1700/2018, WA.1855/2018, WA. 1684/2018, WA.1626/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
7
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940**
**WA.No. 1700 of 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 16246/2015**
**...........**
## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 7, 12 & 18 TO 20:**
**1 JAISON V.A, S/O.AUGUSTHY, AGED 42 YEARS, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT VADAKKELAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., MARYGIRI, ERNAKULAM- 683581.**
**2 K.S. SANJAYSAN, S/O. SUGATHAN, AGED 37 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT ARUMURIPARAMBU, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**
- **3 V.V. STALIN, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 45, VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT VATTOLI HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O, ADICHIL, THANDIYALKUNNU, TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
- **4 ULLAS D., S/O. DHAMODHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, KGN FACTOR, CHANGARAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDNG AT THANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, NEDUMANKAV P.O, KOODAN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT689693.**
- **5 K.K. MOHANAN, S/O. KUTTAN, AGED 54 YEARS VEHICLE HELPER, KALLADA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O, ADICHIL (MUKKUNNICHIRA), TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
## **BY ADV. JOHN VARGHESE**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
8
**RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6, 8 TO 11, 13 TO 17 & 21:**
- **1 SANTHOSH P K., S/O.(LATE) KUNJIKANNAN NAIR, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, MUTHUKADU P.O., PERUVANNAMUZHY, KOZHIKODE.**
- **2 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**
- **3 THE PLANTATION CORPARATION OF KERALA LTD. PERAMBRA ESTATE, MUTHUKAVU P.O, PIN- 673528, PERUVANNAMUZHY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.**
- **4 MANU PAPPACHAN, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689693.**
- **5 SHAJI M.V, VEHICLE HELPER, KALLAL ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 689693.**
- **6 SIBI P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683583.**
- **7 SHIBU K.N., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683583.**
- **8 JOY P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 693.**
- **9 SHYJU C.S., VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, KOZHIKODE- 673528.**
- **10 HAREENDRALAL T.V., VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR- 680721.**
- **11 PRAKASHAN K.K, VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR - 680721.**
- **12 SHAJU C.V, VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR- 680721.**
- **13 SHAJU P.J., VEHICLE HELPER, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR- 680721.**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
9
|**14**|**BIJU K.P, VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE,**|
|---|---|
||**KOZHIKODE- 673528.**|
|**15**|**BIJU K.P., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683583.**|
|**16**|**SHAJI M.K., VEHICLE HELPER,**|
||**THANNITHODE ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689699.**|
|**17**|**JOHNY V.C, VEHICLE HELPER, KALLADA ESTATE,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683583.**|
||**JULIAN XAVIER J., SC**|
||**SRI.RAJESH N., SC**|
||**SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI**|
||**SR. GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH**|
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018 ALONG WITH WA.1854/2018, WA.1684/2018, WA.1626/2018, WA. 1855/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
10
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940**
**WA.No. 1626 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 16246/2015**
**............**
## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 10, 11, 12, 15 T 17 & 21:**
- **1 HAREENDRALAL.T.V. VEHICLE HELPER,PRESENTLY WORKING AT VETTILAPARA ESTATE,THRISSUR DISTRICT.**
- **2 PRAKASHAN K.K, VEHICLE HELPER,PRESENTLY WORKING AT VETTILAPPARA ESTATE,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 721.**
- **3 SHAJU C.V, VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT ATHIRAPPILLY ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**
- **4 BIJU K.P, VEHICLE INSPECTOR,PRESENTELY WORKING AT PERAMBRA ESTATE, KOZHIKODE.**
- **5 BIJU K.P, VEHICLE HELPER,PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM.**
- **6 SHAJI M.K, VEHICLE HELPER,PRESENTLY WORKING AT THANNITHODE ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
- **7 JOMI V.C, VEHICLE HELPER,PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLADA ESTATE, PIN 683583.**
**ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ RAJESH.N SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
11
## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9, 12, 14, 18 TO 20 :**
- **1 SANTHOSH.P.K, S/O.LATE KUNJIKANNAN NAIR, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, MUTHUKAD P.O., PERUVANNAMUZHY, KOZHIKODE.673528.**
- **2 THE PLANTATOR CORPORATION KERALA LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE KOTTAYAM, PIN-686004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**
- **3 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PERAMBRA ESTATE,MUTHUKAD P.O., PIN-673528, PERUVANNAMUZHY, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER.**
- **4 MANU PAPPACHAN, VEHICLE INSPECTOR, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-683693.**
- **5 SAJI M.V., VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683583.**
- **6 SIBI P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683583.**
- **7 SHIBU K.N., VEHICLE INSPECTOR, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLALA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683583.**
- **8 JAISON V.A., VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689693.**
- **9 JOY P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689693.**
- **10 SHYJU C.S., VEHICLE INSPECTOR, PRESENTLY WORKING AT PERAMBRA ESTATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673528..**
- **11 SHAJU P.J., VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, TRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680721.**
- **12 SANJAYAN K.S, VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689693.**
- **13 STALIN V.V, VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT VETTILPARA ESTATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680721.**
- **14 ULLAS D., VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KGN FACTORY, CHANGARAPPALLY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689693.**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
12
**15 MOHANAN K.K.,VEHICLE HELPER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALLADA ESTATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683583.**
**R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH N.**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018 ALONG WITH WA.1854/2018, WA.1855/2018, WA.1700/2018, WA.1684/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
13
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940**
**WA.No. 1855 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22083/2015**
**..........**
## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 6, 8, 9 & 14:**
**1 K.K. MOHANAN, S/O KUTTAN, AGED 54 YEARS, VEHICLE HELPER, ATHIRAPPALLY ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 683 581, RESIDING AT KARUVELIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY PO, ADICHIL (MUKKUNNICHIRA), TRICHUR DISTRICT**
**2 ULLAS D, S/O DHAMODHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, VEHICLE HELPER, KGL FACTORY, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA-691555, RESIDING AT THANIMOOTTIL HOSUE, NEDUMANKAV PO., KOODAN, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689693.**
**3 JAISON V.A., S/O AUGUSTHY, AGED 42 YEARS, VEHICLE HELPER, KGL FACTORY, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA691 555, RESIDING AT VADAKKELAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., MARYGIRI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683581.**
- **4 SANJAYAN K.S, S/O SUGATHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, PATHANAMTHITTA-692 555, RESIDING AT ARUMURIPARAMBU, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**
**ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.A.L.GEORGE**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
14
## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5, 7, 10-13 & 15-17:**
- **1 SHAIJU B, TAPPER, KALLALA ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, ERNAKULAM-683 583**
- **2 SHIBU F.A, L.S WORKER, KALALA ESTATE, A DIVISION, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
- **4 PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE KOTTAYAM PIN-686 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**
- **5 SHYJU C.S, VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, KOZHIKODE-673525.**
- **6 JOY P.D., VEHICLE HELPER, CHANDANAPILLY ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691555.**
- **7 SHIBU K.N., VEHICLE HELPER, ATHIRAPPALLY ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683581.**
- **8 MANU PAPPACHAN, VEHICLE HELPER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE-673 525.**
- **9 PRAKASAN K.K., VEHICLE HELPER, TCR FACTORY, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, VETTILAPPARA, ERNAKULAM-683583.**
- **10 SIBI P.D, VEHICLE HELPER, TCR FACTORY, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, VETTILAPPARA, ERNAKULAM-683583**
- **11 SHAJU C.V.,VEHICLE HELPER, TCR FACTORY, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **12 JOMY V.C,VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683583.**
- **13 BIJU K.P,VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 555.**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
15
- **14 SHAJI M.K,VEHICLE HELPER, THANNITHODE ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 555.**
- **15 HAREENDRALAL T.V.,VEHICLE HELPER, OIL PALM ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, VETILAPPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-683583.**
**R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018 ALONG WITH WA.1854/2018, WA.1626/2018, WA.1700/2018, WA.1684/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
16
## **W.A.Nos.1626, 1684, 1700, 1854 & 1855 of 2018**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Devan Ramachandran, J.**
A slightly vexing issue presents before us in these appeals in connection with the selection process conducted by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. ('the Corporation' for brevity) to the post of Vehicle Helper under them.
2. The appellants/writ respondents, referring to **Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court** (Civil Appeal No.2634/2013), alleges that the 'rules of the game' have been changed by the Selection Committee midway; while the respondents/writ petitioners, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Union of India and Another v. A.K.Narula** ((2007) 11 SCC 10), assert that there was no change of the rules of the game but that the 'threshold of excellence' had been raised so as to identify the best among the candidates.
3. The essential facts, necessary for a resolution of the legal issues, will require a look first.
4. Certain persons working as 'permanent workers' under the Corporation filed writ petitions, from which these appeals arise, alleging that the selection conducted and the rank list prepared by the Corporation for appointment to the post of Vehicle Helper was contrary
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
17
to the stipulations contained in the notification inviting candidature and also in violation of the procedure mandated under the applicable prescriptions.
5. The writ petitions were considered by the learned Single Judge and allowed through a judgment dated 05.06.2018, holding in favour of the writ petitioners and finding that the procedure adopted by the Corporation was forensically incorrect and a consequential direction was made to re-draw the rank list in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the marks in the written test, interview and seniority, as was stipulated in the notification.
6. We notice from the pleadings on record that there were twenty two vacancies of Vehicle Helpers in the Corporation and that the party respondents in the writ petitions, who have been appointed to these vacancies, impugn the judgment in these appeals.
7. We are considering these appeals together because all the writ petitions were disposed of by one judgment and also since the facts, circumstances and reliefs averred and sought for in these cases are analogous. However, for the sake of convenience, we treat W.A.No. 1855/2018 as the lead case and reference to the parties and documents herein will be as in the said appeal.
8. We have heard Sri.John Varghese and Sri.Manoj.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.N.Rajesh, learned Standing
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
18
Counsel for the Plantation Corporation, Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, Smt.A.K.Preetha, Sri.A.V.Xavier, Sri.Julian Xavier, Sri.K.Mohammed Salahudheen, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents.
9. The issue for our consideration remains in a very small purlieu. The essential question is whether the Sub committee appointed by the Corporation to interview the qualified candidates could have then added a weightage based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, even though the Rules or the notification did not concededly permit them to do so.
10. To obtain clarity we will first state pithily the essential facts.
11. Candidates were called for from among the permanent workers of the Corporation through Exhibit P1 notification for being appointed as Vehicle Helpers. As we have said above, there were twenty two vacancies and the notification qualificationally prescribed that each candidate must be capable of reading and writing, that they should have a valid light motor vehicle licence, should possess reasonable physical fitness and eye sight. After prescribing these qualifications, the notification went on to say that the performance of each candidate based on their attendance in service, along with seniority, suitability and excellence in the written test will be assessed for the final selection.
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
19
Further, the notification prescribed the manner in which the process had to be conducted by stipulating that those candidates who passed the written test will be called for an interview and that based on such, the final selection list would be created.
12. It is undisputed before us that ninety two permanent workers applied for the written test and that ninety of them took the same. Out of this, eighty six persons were found qualified, that is to say, they passed the test securing 35% marks, being the threshold and that out of this, eighty four persons appeared for the interview.
13. It is at the stage of the interview that the controversy has its genesis in. This is because, the Sub Committee, which was constituted by the Corporation for the purpose of conducting the interview, decided on their own and unilaterally that a weightage would also be given to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate, which is to be added to the marks in the interview and that a final selection list will be prepared on such basis.
14. We notice from the pleadings on record that the said Sub Committee is seen to have a taken a decision to give weightage of 25, 27 and 30 marks for those who had obtained marks between 17.5-29, between 30-39 and beyond 40 respectively in the written test, though such a criterion was concededly never published or brought to the notice of any of the candidates. The writ petitioners, therefore, allege
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
20
that the award of such weightage in the interview process was illegal and contrary to Exhibit P1 and they contend that the Sub Committee was not empowered, either by the applicable Rules or Regulations or even by executive instructions issued by the Corporation, to award such a weightage. We notice that the learned Single Judge found in favour of the contentions of the writ petitioners and thus allowed the writ petitions.
15. When we evaluate the various submissions made before us, as also the materials available, we must record upfront that we find favour with the conclusions and directions entered into and issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. This is because, it is indubitable from Exhibit P1 that the process mandated for selection had two stages: the first being a written test and the second being an interview. The notification further states that those persons who passed the written test would be called for the interview, that is to mean, that every candidate who secured 35% marks in the written test would then become eligible to be called for the interview, but the notification did not mandate, in any manner, that a further weightage based on the written test marks would be added to the marks in the interview for each of such candidates. We fail to understand how the Sub Committee, which was only an interview committee, would arrogate to themselves the power to award such marks, in obvious excess of their authority,
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
21
during interview, especially when it is conceded by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that no Rules or Regulations permit this. Certainly therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Sub Committee had acted in excess of its powers cannot be faulted.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in some of the cases submitted that the writ petitions ought to to have been construed as being not maintainable, since the writ petitioners would not obtain the locus to challenge the selection process because they have neither imputed malice against the Interview Committee or the Management of the Corporation and that they have voluntarily taken part in the process knowing fully well the manner in which the selection was to be conducted. They further submit that the direction in the impugned judgment, to set aside the entire rank list, is completely inequitable because, according to them, several persons senior to the writ petitioners have also been found eligible in the process adopted by the Corporation. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **A.K.Narula** (supra) to contend that the selection process can be struck down by this Court only if it is vitiated by bias or such other circumstances.
17. The learned counsel appearing for certain other appellants made three submissions. For the first, they say that the writ petitioners had not challenged the constitution of the Sub committee nor have they
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
22
challenged the weightage awarded by the said Committee. Further, they contend that the method adopted by the Selection Committee cannot be faulted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Tej Prakash Pathak** (supra) and asserts that the declaration of law in the said judgment is that the appointing authority can always raise the level of assessment of competence so as to find the best among the candidates.
18. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel as afore, but we are afraid that we cannot accede to any of them. This is because in **A.K.Narula** (supra), the question was not whether the method of appointment could have altered when the process was on, but whether the assessment was vitiated on the grounds of bias, malafides or arbitrariness. It is true that the writ petitioners do not have a case that the selection was vitiated in such manner but they say that the selection committee went wrong in granting weightage, when they had no authority to do so. As regards the judgment in **Tej Prakash Pathak** (supra), the declaration of law therein is that the Rules of the game cannot be changed during the process but that the levels of excellence can be raised so as to obtain the best among the candidates.
19. However, in the case at hand, what has been done is not to raise the threshold of the pass marks in the written test, which,
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
23
perhaps, was possible by the dictum in the afore two judgments, but what has been really done is that the Sub Committee, which is only a component of the entire selection process, unilaterally and on their own granted a weightage based on the marks in the written test, which was completely impermissible, particularly because, Exhibit P1 notification stipulates that only those candidates who 'passed' the written test would be called for the interview. Therefore, ineluctably, when candidates had passed the written test, thus becoming eligible for the next stage, no further weightage on the basis of the marks in such qualifying test could have been granted to them in the interview, that too by the Interview Committee, particularly when the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has already submitted that no Rules or Regulations permit this to be done.
20. In the afore circumstances, we are certain in our mind that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any vitiating factors and that the learned Judge has acted well within jurisdiction. We find the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to be absolutely in consonance with the principles of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in such circumstances and therefore, the directions to re-draw the rank list in accordance with the Rules and on the basis of the marks in the written test and interview as also attendance and seniority are completely attuned to the stipulations in
WA 1626/18 & con. Cases
24
## Exhibit P1 notification.
Consequently, these appeals stand dismissed, however, we accede to the request of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation to grant them further time to comply with the directions issued by the learned Judge and therefore, we extend such time for a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge
Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv