P. V. Thankachan v. Coir Board and Subrata Kumar Biswal

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **WA.No. 453 of 2014 IN WPC. 27848/2008** **--------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27848/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-01-2014** **APPELLANT/ PETITIONER :** **-----------------------** **P.V. THANKACHAN, S/O.VARGHESE P.L., UPPER DIVISION CLERK, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 016.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU** **RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------** **1. COIR BOARD, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, COIR HOUSE, P.B.NO.1752, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SUBRATA KUMAR BISWAL, S/O.S.H.HRUDANANDA BISWAL, R/O.BLOCK-14, QUARTERS NO.826, LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI-110 003, (PRESENTLY WORKING AS LAISON OFFICER, COIR DISPLAY AND INFORMATION CENTRE, COIR BOARD, RAJIV GANDHI HANDICRAFTS BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, BABA KHADAG SINGH MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001). R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.P.J.PHILIP, C.G.C SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL BY SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :** **RKM** ## **K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.A.No. 453 of 2014** ## **=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Surendra Mohan, J._ This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.01.2014 disposing of W.P.(C).No.27848 of 2008. The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate at a selection to the post of Liaison Officer of the first respondent, Coir Board, had filed the writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of the 2[nd] respondent. 2. As per Ext.P1 Notification dated 05.05.2008, the first respondent had invited applications for appointment through direct recruitment to the post of Liaison Officer in their service. The qualification prescribed was “Graduate with adequate experience in Central Secretariat”. Though the Notification stipulated a concession regarding age, since there is no dispute with respect to the said aspect, we do not want to go into the said question. Pursuant to the Notification, it is stated that there were seven applicants. Out of the said persons, only three persons were called for the interview as per Ext.P4 dated 07.07.2008. The interview was conducted on W.A.No. 453 of 2014 2 04.08.2008. After the interview, a Rank List was prepared, in which the 2[nd] respondent was Ranked as No.1 and selected. The appellant, who was Rank No.2, was not selected. He, thereupon filed the writ petition, challenging the selection and appointment of the 2[nd] respondent. 3. According to the appellant, he is a person, who has got long experience in the Central Secretariat and thereafter in the Coir Board also. His experience is set out in Ext.P3. In comparison, the 2[nd] respondent has experience only as a 'Group D employee' on contract basis. Placing reliance on Exts.P7 and P8 documents it was contended that the experience of the 2[nd] respondent was only for a limited period of 4 months. For the above reasons, it was contended that the selection and appointment was bad and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. The contentions of the appellant were refuted by the respondents. Separate counter affidavits were filed. The 2[nd] respondent was appointed through direct recruitment for which, the qualifications have been prescribed by the notification Ext.P1. The notification does not stipulate that the experience of a candidate should be acquired in a permanent post. It was found that, the 2[nd] respondent had sufficient experience going by the certificate dated 01.05.2008 produced by him, evidenced herein by Ext.R1(C). As per W.A.No. 453 of 2014 3 Ext.R1(C), he has four years experience. At the interview, it is stated that he had obtained more marks than the appellant. 5. According to the 2[nd] respondent, he fully satisfied the educational qualifications, the stipulation regarding age and had sufficient experience as contemplated by Ext.P1. He produced the Experience Certificate issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Department in support of his contentions. His experience at the Ministry, according to him, satisfied the requirement stipulated by Ext.P1 Notification. 6. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, took note of the fact that what was stipulated by the Notification was, adequate experience in the Central Secretariat and that, the Experience Certificate produced by the 2[nd] respondent, satisfied the said requirements. In the absence of any allegation of mala fides against the persons, who constituted the Board, it was found that the challenge could not succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed. 7. According to Adv.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, who appears for the appellant, as per Ext.P1, only a Graduate with adequate experience in the Central Secretariat was eligible to be appointed to the post notified as per Ext.P1. Relying on Ext.P3 application submitted by the appellant, it is contended that he possessed W.A.No. 453 of 2014 4 sufficient experience in the Central Secretariat and thereafter in the Coir Board itself, for a number of years. In the case of the 2[nd] respondent, it is pointed out that he was engaged only on contract basis, initially as a 'Group D employee'. What is evident from Ext.P8 is that, he was engaged as an Office Assistant on contract basis. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, he is a person, who was working only as a casual employee. For the above reason, his experience cannot be equated to that of a permanent employee like the appellant. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of the above distinction. The counsel places reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Vasundhara v. Sallas Benjamin [2010 (1) KLT 533] (DB)** to point out that, this Court had in the said case interfered with a selection to the post of Reader for the reason that the experience of the selected persons had been obtained by working as a Guest Lecturer. By the same analogy, it is contended that the selection of the 2[nd] respondent is also required to be interfered with and set aside. 8. The Assistant Solicitor General of India, who appears for the 1[st] respondent, on the other hand points out that there is no stipulation in Ext.P1 that the experience to be possessed by a candidate should have been obtained by working in a permanent post. In the absence of any such stipulation, the appointing W.A.No. 453 of 2014 5 authority was perfectly within its powers to accept the qualification that was possessed by the 2[nd] respondent. Going by the Experience Certificate, Ext.R1(c), he possessed the necessary experience and it was for the said reason that, he had been called for an interview. At the interview, since he performed better than the other candidates, he was Ranked as No.1 and was selected. It is contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with such selection, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 9. According to Adv. Varghese C. Kuriakose, who appears for the 2[nd] respondent, his client possessed the requisite qualification stipulated by Ext.P1. His experience is borne out by the certificate that was produced by him and evidenced by Ext.R1(c). It was on the basis of his performance at the interview that he had been selected. It is therefore contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment appealed against. 10. Heard. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, though Ext.P1 stipulated that the candidates should possess a qualification of Graduation, and shall satisfy the age limit stipulated therein, there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the 2[nd] respondent on the said counts. What is disputed is only the qualification regarding the experience that is stipulated by Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, what is stipulated is that the candidates should have W.A.No. 453 of 2014 6 adequate experience in Central Secretariat. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that the qualifications were relaxable at the discretion of the appointing authority. The said stipulation shows that the appointing authority was conferred with a discretion to relax the qualification stipulated, in appropriate cases, though in the present case no such relaxation has been granted. It is further clear that, what constitutes adequate experience is also an aspect that was left to be assessed by the appointing authority, in Ext.P2. The appointing authority has placed reliance on the experience certificate produced, evidenced by Ext.R1(c), a copy of which is produced by the 2[nd] respondent also as Ext.R2(i). In the absence of any allegation of mala fides or any material to suggest that there was extraneous consideration, the action of the appointing authority in relying upon the experience certificate of the 2[nd] respondent cannot be found fault with. It is not in dispute that, as per Ext.R1(b) which shows the marks obtained by the respective candidates at the interview, the 2[nd] respondent stood first. In the above factual scenario, we do not find anything wrong in the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that there were no grounds to interfere with the selection and appointment of the 2[nd] respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision in Vasundara's case (supra). The said case involved W.A.No. 453 of 2014 7 selection to the post of Reader of the Calicut University. It was found that the appellant was not qualified to be appointed to the said post since the experience claimed by her was obtained only as a Guest Lecturer. This Court has relied on the definition of “teacher” contained in Section 2(27) of the Calicut University Act. As per the said definition, a person would answer the definition of 'teacher', only where his appointment was approved by the University. It was for the said reason that, this Court has held that the experience obtained as a Guest Lecturer would not satisfy the requirement regarding experience stipulated in the Notification therein. It is not in dispute that in Ext.P1 notification, there is no stipulation that the experience of the candidate should be obtained by working in a permanent post. The above being the position, we do not find any substance in the said contention also. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **K. SURENDRA MOHAN** **JUDGE** ## Sd/- **ANNIE JOHN JUDGE** True Copy PA to Judge RKM