Krishnakumar R v. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala & Others

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -1- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10580 OF 2022** **PETITIONER/S:** **KRISHNAKUMAR R AGED 52 YEARS S/O M.N. RAVINDRANADAN NAIR, MULAPPON, EZHUMATOOR P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 586 BY ADVS. SAIJO HASSAN BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RAFEEK. V.K. U.M.HASSAN P.PARVATHY AKHILESH S. ABHIRAMI DINESH RENJINI M. RENJITH ROSE MATHEW K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 012.** - **4 CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, KOIPRAM BLOCK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 586.** - **5 THE SECRETARY, EZHUMATOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THELLIYOOR P.O.VENNIKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 544. SRI. K.P. HARISH, SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **28.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -2- ## **J U D G M E N T** S. Manikumar, C.J. Instant writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 selection list. 2. That apart, petitioner has also sought for a writ of certiorari directing the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Pathanamthitta, and the Secretary, Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta, respondents 4 and 5 respectively, to re-constitute the selection committee for selecting candidates to the post of Anganwadi Helpers, pursuant to Ext. P1 notice dated 03.03.2020, in accordance with the provisions of Ext. P7 Government Order dated 22.12.2012, wherein orders have been issued renewing the selection committee and criterion for selecting Anganwadi Workers / Helpers under the Integrated Child Development and Service Project (ICDS). 3. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:- a) According to the petitioner, he is a member of the Ward No. W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -3- 14 of Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat of Pathanamthitta District. In the Grama Panchayat, there are vacancies to the post of Anganawadi Helpers. Candidates applied for selection and a selection list was thus published. b) Petitioner has submitted that incidentally, the selection list was flawed with favoritism based on political inclinations. Petitioner in public interest, on learning the mishandling of guidelines and directions as laid in Ext. P5 dated 29.11.2021, filed a Right to Information application, requesting the information with regards the selection committee, and filed a complaint to the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Pathanamthitta, the 4[th] respondent, but was met with silence. c) Hence, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in the larger interest of the public, seeking for a direction to the respondents to take urgent steps to cancel the flawed selection committee, and form a new selection committee, with respect to Ext. P7 Government Order dated 22.12.2012. This renders the entire process starting from determination of candidates to the selection committee, leading upto the publishing of the selection list as flawed with discernible W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -4- favoritism. 4. Supporting the prayers sought for, petitioner has raised the following grounds:- 5. The procedure for the selection of the members for constituting the selection committee is done by violating the provisions of G.O.(Ms) No. 74/2012/SNU dated 22.12.2012 issued by the State Government. The criteria as laid in the same regarding the determination of 5 members of the committee have been overlooked, resulting in a clear case of favoritism. 6. Selection committee, which is constituted in violation of the Government Order, has no authority to select any candidates to the post of Anganwadi Helpers and to publish the same. But the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Pathanamthitta, the 4[th] respondent, published the selection list, which was prepared through illegal manner, and the candidates are proposed to be appointed from the selection list. The published selection list has been laced with favoritism, thereby denying a fair chance to the rest of applicants. 7. Petitioner's complaint explaining the illegality committed by W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -5- the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Pathanamthitta, the 4[th] respondent, in constitution of the selection committee raised before the concerned authority, has not been considered. Still candidates from the selection list are proposed to be appointed in a hastily manner. This is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and provisions of the Ext. P7 Government Order dated 22.12.2012. 8. Heard Mr. Saijo Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material available on record. 9. Ext. P7 Government Order No. 74/2012/SJD dated 22.12.2012, issuing renewed selection committee and criterion for selecting Anganwadi Workers / Helpers under the Integrated Child Development & Service Project (ICDS), reads thus:- ## “ **Government of Kerala** ## **Abstract** Department of Social Justice-Orders are issued renewing the Selection Committee and criterions for selecting Anganwadi Worker/Helpers Integrated Child Development & Service Project (I.C.D.S.). W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -6- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## **Social Justice (B) Department** ## **G.O.(M.S.) No. 74/2012/SJD. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram 22.12.2012** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Read: (1) Letter F No. 1/14/2006-C.D.1 dated 28/05/2007 of Central Government. (2) G.O. (M.S.) No. 59/08/SJD dated 22/10/2008. (3) G.O.(M.S.) No. 80/10/SJD dated 11/11/2010. (4) G.O.(M.S.) No. 05/12/SJD dated 3/01/2012. ## **ORDER** Orders cited as references were issued renewing criterions and reconstituting selection committee for selecting Helpers/Anganwadi Worker under Integrated Child Development and Service Project (I.D.C.S.). On Administrative reasons and on considering the centre of utilization of Central/State funds, immediate availability and executive zone of aforesaid Projects and since it seems that inclusion of President of Grama Panchayat instead of President of Block Panchayat as Chairman of the said Committee is suitable, in the instruction from the Centre as per reference (1) with regard to the constitution of Selection Committee, the direction to include Block Panchayat President/Block Development Officer is optional, and since on all these affairs the States could take appropriate decision, it is hereby ordered to have been amended the excerpts of paragraph 6(1), Paragraph 6 (2), Paragraph 7 (Selection Committee to select Anganwadi Helpers) in the 3[rd] paragraph and paragraph 4 of Government Order in Reference (1) as added hereunder. W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -7- ## (i) Excerpts of Paragraph 6 (1) Selection Committee is to be formed at the level of Grama Pancahyat/Municipality/ Corporation. Selection Committee's Chair Person will be President of Grama Panchayat/Chair Person of Municipality/Mayor. ## (ii) Excerpts of Paragraph 6 (20) Appointment through selection Committee should only be given only after reserving 25% of Posts of workers upon the instructions of Central Government to the helpers having educational qualification of SSLC and 10 years continuous service. While considering Helpers to the 25% reserved posts of workers should be considered those who passed S.S.L.C. or equivalent qualifying exam or 'A' level equivalency exam. It should be at the level of Grama Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation. ## (iii) Excerpts of Paragraph 7 1. Grama Panchayat President/ - Municipal Chairperson / Mayor Chairperson 2. Child Development Project Officer - Convener 3. Representative of Block Panchayat - Member 4. Panchayat Secretary / Secretary, Municipality / Corporation - Member 5. Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre - Member 6. Programme Office, ICDS Cell at District level - Member 7. Social activists 5 persons - Members W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -8- ## (iv) Paragraph 4 Representative of Block Panchayath will be the member nominated by Administrative Committee of Block Panchayat. 5 social activists are to be included in the selection committee formed at the level of Grama Panchayat/Municipality/ Corporation. Out of which 3 persons should be women. These 5 persons who are to be nominated by the Officer Social Justice of concerned District should have been expert knowledge in relation with the Child Development. Nominee is to be decided without any delay after passing this order and Selection Committee meeting should not be adjourned on a reason that decision is not made as such. The aforesaid Committee can take action even if the nominee is not available. It is determined that the term of the persons who are nominated to the Select Committee will be 2 years and total number of persons in the select committee formed as such will be 11 and quorum of the committee will be 6. 2) Government orders in Reference (4) is in existence with the aforesaid amendments and these amendment should be came into force from the date of order. Appointments made in accordance with the existing rules till the date of order should not be reviewed. 3) Pursuant to it, in the orders in relation with the appointment of Anganwadi workers, the portions that 'At the level of Project/Block Panchayath' should be read correctly as 'At the level of Grama Panchayat/ Municiality/Corporation. By the Orders of the Governor Dr. K.M. Abraham Principal Secretary” W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -9- 10. Selection list of Anganwadi Workers / Helpers in Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat has been prepared by Ext. P3. 11. According to the petitioner, the 5 persons to be nominated by the officer of the Social Justice Department of the concerned district should have expert knowledge in relation to child development. Though the petitioner has made an application under Ext. P4 dated 19.11.2021 to the CDPC for certain documents, he has not raised any questions as to the nature of experience certificate required to be produced by the candidates, who have been nominated by the Social Justice Department. 12. Though in the averments and in the memorandum of grounds petitioner has alleged that the said members do not possess the required experience, as stated supra, no effort has been made to ascertain the nature / kind of experience required to be possessed by the members of the committee. 13. Though a further contention has been made that the selected candidates belong to a political party, there is no proof of the same. As evident from Ext. P2 newspaper report dated 08.03.2020, selection appears to have been finalized in the year 2020. W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -10- 14. W. P. (C) No. 2297 of 2022 filed earlier has been dismissed as withdrawn on 24.01.2022. Thereafter, instant writ petition has been filed on 25.02.2022. None of the members of the selection committee nor the selected candidates have been shown as party respondents. 15. On the aspect of public interest litigations and the principles governing the same, we deem it fit to extract a few decisions:- In **Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee &** **Anr. v. C.K. Rajan & Others** [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See **S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India** (1982) 2 SCC 494 **, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others** (1984) 3 SCC 161 and **Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary** (1992) 4 SCC 305)] W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -11- (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-avis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See **Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar** (1980) 1 SCC 81). (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In **Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani** (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held: "2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -12- so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” (See also _Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors._ (2003) 5 SCALE 138). (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See _Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333_ ]. (v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See **Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.** , 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and **Forward** W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -13- **Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others** (1986) 1 SCC 100]. (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See **Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others** 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251). (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See **Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others** (1987) 1 SCC 227). (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See **Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar** (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and **A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu** (1999) 2 SCC 718). In **Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others** [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,- W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -14- “61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." This Court, in an unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in **B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.** [W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, held thus: “45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in _**Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others,** [2019 KHC 832]_ , it has been summarised by the journal thus: “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -15- (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -16- personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. (10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. (11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. (12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. (13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. (14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -17- political agenda. (15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. (16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. (17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. (18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. (19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. (20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. (21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. (22) Courts protect the rule of law. W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -18- (23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.” 16. Writ petition does not satisfy the requirements of a public interest litigation. For the reasons stated supra and in the light of the abovesaid decisions, we are of the view that the writ petitioner has not made out any case to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/-** **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2022 -19- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10580/2022** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.3.2020 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 8.3.2020 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST DATED NIL ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 19.11.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI DATED 29.11.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.11.2018 BY THE PRESIDENT, EZHUMATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2012 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 4.2.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.11.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 2297/2022 DATED 24.1.2022**