High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2024-01-11Dismissed

Surya A.B. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WA 455 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anu Sivaraman, J.
C. Pratheep Kumar, J.
Judgment Date: 2024-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is dismissed. The Division Bench concurs with the learned Single Judge that the appellant did not establish that she was wholly dependent on her fisherman father, and that Ext.P1/Note (4) boundaries and accompanying certificates govern eligibility under the notification. The judgement upholds the rejection of the dependency certificate and the appellant’s ineligibility for the Project Officer post under the fisherfolk category.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Surya A.B.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Fisheries and Ports, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum
The Director of Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala Public Service Commission, represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram
The Tahsildar, Kochi Taluk Office, Fort Kochi
The Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MatsyaFed) represented by its Managing Director, Thiruvananthapuram
The Commissioner, Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board, Ayappa Nagar, Pookunam, Thrissur
The Fisheries Officer, Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board, Narakkal, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.N. Santhosh
• K.P. Geetha Mani

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. B. Unnikrishana Kaimal
• Sr.GP Joe J Urvath
• Alex K. John (K/1038/2001)
• Sabir N.S. (K/1554/2020)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Surya A.B., the appellant, challenges a writ appeal that upheld a learned Single Judge’s dismissal of her petition seeking a dependency-based eligibility certificate for appointment as a Project Officer in the Fisheries Department. The central issue is whether the applicant, whose father is a fisherman, can be treated as a dependent of a fisherman for eligibility under a direct recruitment notification that restricted appointments to fishermen or dependents of fishermen, with Note (4) mandating a dependency certificate issued by Revenue Officials on the basis of a Fisheries Officer certificate confirming Fishermen status or dependence. The appellant contends that the Single Judge erred in refusing to consider her claim of livelihood dependence on her father, arguing that the grounds for rejection were misconceived and not connected to public employment; she also relies on Supreme Court authorities concerning gender-based restrictions and within-class classifications. The respondents submit that the notification’s terms are clear and that dependency, if any, must be established under the stated procedure, as the appellant and her husband were employed elsewhere. The court notes Ext.P15’s erratum purportedly extending eligibility to living dependents and the Public Service Commission’s role under the extant notes, but ultimately agrees that the appellant failed to prove complete dependence on her fisherman father. The appeal is therefore dismissed, upholding the Single Judge’s order and the prescribed criteria for eligibility under the notification.

Provisions of Law Cited

The Kerala Fishermen Welfare Societies Act, 1980

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering her claim of livelihood dependence on her fisherman father. She argues that the rejection was based on misconceived grounds and that public employment should be interpreted with liberal construction, especially for dependents of fishermen. Relying on Supreme Court rulings (notably C.B. Muthamma Miss, I.F.S. v. Union of India and Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab), she asserts that gender-based or intra-class restrictions require real, substantial grounds. She also notes Ext.P15’s erratum intended to broaden eligibility by allowing living dependents of fishermen. The appellant maintains she is eligible under the notification’s intent and that the certificate process should reflect her status as a dependent of a fisherman.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain the notification’s terms are clear: eligibility is limited to fishermen or dependents of fishermen with Note (4) requiring a dependency certificate issued by Revenue Officials based on the Fisheries Officer’s certificate. They argue the appellant failed to prove she was wholly dependent on her fisherman father and that the dependency criterion is strictly tied to the notification and the extant rules, including the PSU’s procedures. They contend the petition was correctly dismissed by the Single Judge and that the erratum Ext.P15 did not alter the substantive requirement as applied to the appellant’s case.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
C.B. Muthamma Miss, I.F.S. v. Union of India and others	(1979) 4 SCC 260	Mentioned Only	Cited by the appellants to argue for liberalization of benefits for women dependents, but the court does not adopt the proposition; it remains an argument rather than a controlling ruling in this case.
Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab and another	(2002) 4 SCC 154	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the proposition that classifications within a class require real and substantial grounds; the court does not apply this principle to grant relief, treating it as an argument rather than a binding precedent in the present context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Surya A.B. v. State of Kerala and others 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945** **WA NO.455 OF 2023 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6146/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.2.2023** **----------------** ## **- APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** SURYA A.B., AGED 34 YEARS D/O.BHASY A.T, ALLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARATTUVAZHI, NJARAKKAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 505 BY ADVS. P.N.SANTHOSH K.P.GEETHA MANI(K/155/1991) ## **- RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND PORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKASBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 033. 3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BYITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE, PIN – 695 004. 4 THE THAHSILDAR KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN – 682 001. 5 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED(MATSYAFED) REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 009. 6 THE COMMISSIONER, KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 2 :- AYYAPPA NAGAR, POOKUNNAM.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 002. 7 THE FISHERIES OFFICER KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 505 BY ADVS. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP JOE J URUVATH ALEX K.JOHN(K/1038/2001) SABIR N.S.(K/1554/2020) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 3 :- ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024** ## **Anu Sivaraman, J.** Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in as much as it refuses to consider the contention of the appellant that she was dependent on her father for her livelihood and thus rejected the application is not proper. It is contended that the appellant's father was a fisherman and that the rejection of her claim for dependency certificate on the ground that he is still living was incorrect. It is further contended that since the reasons stated in the order rejecting the dependency certificate were misconceived, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition. The learned counsel would also contend that the reasons stated for rejecting the request of the appellant for dependency certificate were referable to the Government Orders with regard to payment of compensation and were not relatable to public employment. It is stated that where public employment is concerned, all eligible WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 4 :- candidates ought to have been considered and that the question of dependency should be liberally construed. It is submitted that the word 'dependent' is not defined either in the notification or in any of the Government Orders or enactments relatable to the issue including in the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Societies Act, 1980 and that therefore, the claim of the appellant could belong to the fishermen community ought to have been considered. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in **C.B. Muthamma Miss, I.F.S.** v. **Union of India and others** [(1979) 4 SCC 260] to contend that declining the benefits to women dependents only because they were married while such restrictions are not available in case of male dependents is completely illegal. Further, the decision of the Apex Court in **Sansar Chand Atri** v. **State of Punjab and another** [(2002) 4 SCC 154] is also relied on to contend that a classification within a class, unless it is based on real and substantial grounds, would be impermissible. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent submits that the 6[th] respondent had specifically considered the issue of dependency while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. It is stated that the appellant had claimed that she was dependent on her father, who was a fisherman. It is stated that the WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 5 :- 6[th] respondent had, on making enquiries, found that the appellant was not dependent on her father and that she was holding a temporary employment in the Fisheries Department and that dependency, if any, was on her husband, who was not a fisherman and in respect of whom, no dependency had been claimed. It is submitted that the question has to be considered in terms of the notification under which the appellant applied and that the terms of the notification being clear, the appellant could seek benefits only on the basis of the same. 5. The learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission would also contend that the issue has to be considered specifically in terms of the notification. 6. The notification was issued calling for applications for appointment to the post of Project Officer from qualified candidates. The method of appointment was direct recruitment from fishermen/ dependent of fishermen community. Note (4) to the qualifications specifically provides as follows :- “4) The eligible employees of Fishermen/Dependent of Fishermen who apply for the above post should obtain the Certificate from the Revenue Officials. The Revenue Officials concerned will issue the dependency certificate on the basis of the certificate issued by the Fisheries Officer concerned stating that the person belongs to the category of Fishermen. WA NO.455 OF 2023 ## -: 6 :- (Fishermen means any person engaged mainly in fishing operations for the livelihood. Dependents means Wife/Husband, Son/Daughter, Father/Mother of deceased sons or daughters wholly dependent on fishermen). The Dependency Certificate showing the details of the applicant, which render them eligible to apply for the post and should upload the same in their profile and the original shall be produced when required by the Commission. Applications that upload Dependency Certificate at the time of submission will only be considered. The Dependency Certificate should contain the following details.” 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an erratum notification has been issued as evidenced by Ext.P15 amending Note (4) making the dependents of fishermen, who are alive also, eligible to apply. It is, therefore, contended that the rejection of the request on the ground that her father is still alive is incorrect. 8. We have considered the contentions advanced. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions raised by the appellant and has held that the rejection of the application by Ext.P14 order was on the finding that the appellant was not wholly dependent on her father. It was observed in the judgment that the appellant and her husband were employed and there was no specific contention to the effect that the appellant was wholly dependent on her father. In the light of Note (4) in Ext.P1 notification, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 7 :- the rejection of the request for dependency certificate on the ground that the dependency could not be proved, cannot be said to be illegal. 9. Having considered the contentions advanced on both sides, we are unable to hold otherwise. Note (4) of Ext.P1 specifically provides that a person to be eligible to apply under the category of dependent of fishermen should obtain a certificate from the Revenue Officials. The Revenue Officials were to issue the dependency certificate on the basis of the certificate issued by the Fisheries Officer stating that the person belongs to the category of fishermen or is wholly dependent on fishermen. It is clear from the materials on record that the appellant had contended that she is fully dependent on her father, but the said claim was found to be factually incorrect. The 6[th] respondent, on considering the contention, came to the conclusion that she and her husband both being otherwise employed, she was not wholly dependent on her father for her livelihood and therefore, could not be considered as a dependent of the fisherman, that is the father. Having gone through the records produced and the judgments relied on, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the appellant had produced material to show that she was dependent on her father, who was a fisherman. We are, therefore, WA NO.455 OF 2023 -: 8 :- of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE** Jvt/17.1.2024 WA NO.455 OF 2023 ## -: 9 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WA 455/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- - Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER FROM FISHERMAN WELFARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY NARACKAL-NAYARAMBALAM ON 2003-2007. - Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBSCRIPTION RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER FOR THE YEAR 2023-2024 ON 24-03-2023. - Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE CATEGORY NO.221/2020 FOR THE POST OF PROJECT OFFICER PART II (FISHERMAN/ DEPENDENT OF FISHERMAN CATEGORY) ISSUED BY THE PSC ON 01-06-2023 - Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA FISHERMEN WELFARE SOCIETIES ACT,1980 . - Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED THE PSC FOR THE CATEGORY NO.221/2020 ON 04/08/2023. - Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28.10.2023. - Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER RTI FROM THE FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA ON 08.11.2023 .