SREENU S.S v. State of Kerala and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 17612 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** SREENU.S.S AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SREEKANTHAN. A, RESIDING AT SREE BHAVAN, VELIYAMKOTTUKONAM, KIZHAKKEKARA, AYIRA P.O., PARASSALA - 695 503, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV N.UNNIKRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3 KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 506, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 4 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARODE (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 506, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT. 5 SHEEBA. T. V., T. V. BHAVAN, OORAVILA, ERICHALLUR, PLAMOOTTUKDADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 128. 6 ANJU. P. V. KADAKIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, PLAMOOTTUKDADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 128. BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.G.SUDHEER SRI.R.T.PRADEEP W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 2 SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308) SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP PARVATHY KOTTOL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, THE COURT ON 5/11/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petitioner is a B.Com Computer Application Graduate, evidenced by Ext.P2. He had also acquired Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application evidenced by Ext.P3. The third respondent Panchayath had invited candidates for a “walk in interview” to the post of Accountant-cumdata entry operators on contract basis, for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme. The qualification prescribed by the Panchayath Committee, as evident from Ext.P4, was B.Com with P.G.D.C.A. The petitioner has an allegation that the walk in interview was not properly publicized and hence only ten persons participated in the interview. The only qualified person expressed her intention not to accept the job, for personal reasons. The Panchayath selected respondents 5 and 6 to the said post. The allegation of the petitioner is that, the 5[th] respondent had completed only Pre-Degree and had Diploma in Computer Application(DCA). The 6[th] respondent, though had acquired M.Com Degree, had only Diploma in Computer Application. Both candidates did not satisfy the minimum prescribed qualifications prescribed by the Panchayath as evident from Ext.P4. However, both were appointed due to the interest shown by the third respondent Panchayath, it was alleged. 2. Alleging that their appointment was irregular, that they were unqualified and that the Panchayath had favoured them for reasons best known to them, the petitioner has approached this court with the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 4 The relief sought was, to declare that the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 as Accountant – cum-data entry operator in MNRGS of the third respondent evidenced by Annexures 4,5 and 6 was unsustainable, to quash their appointments and also to issue appropriate writ or order or direction to the third respondent to conduct fresh election for appointment to the post of Accountant – cum- data entry operator of the third respondent in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. 3. Notice was served on all the respondents who have appeared. The third respondent panchayath had filed a counter affidavit. It was specifically contended that the petitioner was not an applicant and hence, he had no cause of action. The writ petition was not maintainable at his instance. He did not apply, nor participated in the walk- in -interview. The Panchayath had resolved and authorized a committee to conduct the interview. Accordingly, towards the two vacancies, ten persons responded and after interview, their list was prepared. The person in the top of the list informed that she was not interested in the said post and hence, on the basis of the panchayath committee decision, respondents 5 and 6 were appointed. The interview was strictly in accordance with the guidelines and there was no vested interest in their selection. The appointment of respondents 5 and 6 was purely temporary and due to urgency to carry out day to day activities of the Panchayath,they were appointed. The above two persons are hardworking and due to their efforts, schemes to the tune of Rs.7 Crores could be implemented without any complaint. Hence, the Panchayath sought for dismissal of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 5 4.Though respondents 5 and 6 were served and appeared through counsel, they did not file any counter affidavit. A reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner reiterating his allegations. Heard both sides. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not participated in the interview. Other participants have no grievance. There is nothing on record to show that he was also an aspirant, though he contended that he was qualified. According to him, though respondents 5 and 6 were appointed for a term of one year, due to extension of their tenure, the panchayath is not notifying vacancy and hence he could not apply to that post. To that extent he is aggrieved, it was contended. It is true that the petitioner is neither an applicant nor is an aspirant, and as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Panchayath, normally, a person who is not directly affected nor is an applicant, cannot have any grievance regarding selection. 6. Vehemently opposing the writ petition, learned counsel for the Panchayath pointed out that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person, and he cannot challenge the selection. Public interest litigation is unknown to service jurisprudence, it was contended. To support it, the learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Bholanath Mukherjee and ors v. Ramakrishna Mission (2011) 5 SCC 464)**_ , _**Gurupal Singh v. State of Punjab(2005) 5 SCC 136)**_ and _**Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465)**_ and the Division Bench decisions of this court in **J** _**aleel P.P. v. P.K.Murali Krishna and others [2014 (1) KHC 672]**_ . In all the above cases,it was reiterated that a third party having no concern with the W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 6 case, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance in service matters. It was affirmed that courts should be careful and circumspect and should reject at the outset petition, especially inviting service matters which in the guise of PIL are really intended to settle personnel scores or even filed to gain cheap publicity. In the present case, the Panchayath has no case that the petitioner had any motives. It is not filed as a public interest litigation. Petitioner has a specific case that appointments were done relaxing the qualification prescribed by the Government. The petitioner has a further specific case that the prescribed Rules were violated and hence he has a duty to bring it to the notice of the court and to ensure that only competent persons are appointed. 7. Ext.P4 minutes of the Panchayath indicates that the qualification prescribed was B.Com with PGDCA. Materials on record clearly show that respondents 5 and 6 did not have the requisite qualification. The interview committee conducted interview of all the candidates who had appeared, without even verifying whether the applicants satisfied the minimum educational requirement. In spite of it, after the interview, the only qualified candidate did not accept the employment. Hence, the Panchayath committee resolved to appoint respondents 5 and 6. It is seen from Ext.P4 that, Panchayat Secretary clearly brought to the notice of the Panchayath Committee that the interview itself was irregular. He had informed that interview was conducted by the Committee without even verifying whether the candidates were qualified or not. The Secretary also brought to the notice of the committee that the W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 7 Government, by G.O MN.67/09/LSGD/TVM, dated 26/1/2009, had prescribed the basic qualification of Accountant cum data entry operator as B.Com with PGDCA. It was suggested by the Secretary that, since the only qualified person did not accept the employment and whereas the remaining candidates were unqualified, fresh applications should be invited. The committee was also warned that since a huge amount of Rs.4 Crores was expended by the Panchayat every year, the post of data entry operator was very crucial and appointment of persons without sufficient qualification would amount to breach of the Act and Rules and the committee may be responsible for any loss that may be caused. In spite of these clear warnings and reasoned advice given by the Secretary, the Board rejected it and proceeded to appoint respondent Nos. 5 and 6, by majority decision. 8. Evidently, the decision taken by the Panchayath committee, rejecting the advise given by the Secretary, was absolutely irregular. The Secretary was well justified in expressing his opinion which is available on record. Having considered this, the appointment made by the Panchayath committee is only to be held to be improper and irregular. Having considered the fact the respondents 5 and 6 are continuing, I am inclined to direct that service of the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents shall stand terminated forthwith. There will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent Panchayath to take immediate steps to call for fresh applications with sufficient publicity, so that maximum competent persons can apply, and after conducting a transparent selection process, appropriate persons shall be appointed forthwith on such terms and condition as may be W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 8 prescribed. The entire process shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Panchayath will be free to make interim arrangements for data entry during the interregnum . The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- ## **SUNIL THOMAS** **Judge** dpk W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17612/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SELECTION TO| |---|---| ||THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY| ||OPERATOR.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF| ||MARKS IN B.COM. APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE| ||CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MANONMANIAM| ||SUNDARNAR UNIVERSITY, TIRUNELVELI,| ||TAMILNADU.| |EXHIBIT P3|A TROE COPY OF CERTIFICATE (STUDENTS| ||REGISTER NO.49618006) ISSUED BY THE| ||CONROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, COLLEGE OF| ||CAREER STUDIES, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU.| |EXHIBIT P4|A TRUE COPY OF DECISON NO.4(1) DATED| ||24.9.2016 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT, THE| ||PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER NO.A1-83/19| ||DATED 4.2.2019.| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SELECTION TO| ||THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY| ||OPERATOR.| |EXHIBIT P7|A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF MARKS BOOK| ||NO.13 DATED 1.6.1999 ISSUED BY THE| ||CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF| ||KERALA OF 5TH RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE SL NO.3098-| ||REG.NO.170 IN DIPLOMA IN COMPUTER| ||APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR,| ||EXAMINATIONS OF SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION| ||TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| ||ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE| ||WITYH REGISTRAR NO.744986 DATED 3.10.2016| ||IN DIPLOMA IN COMPUTER APPLICATION ISSUED| ||BY THE REGISTRAR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF| ||IMAGING TECHNOLOGY (C-DIT),| W.P.(C) No.17612/2019 10 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY F STATEMENT OF MARKS IN M.COM WITH REF.NO.EG.13 05 9436 0 DATED 23.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO TEH SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.4.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.