T. P. Balagopal v. Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayath, Palakkad District and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/29TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 14591 of 2014 (Y)** **--------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **T.P.BALAGOPAL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CONTRACT METER READER (WATER METER READER), KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PULASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 307, RESIDING AT: THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.T.N.SREEKALA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.** **2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** - **ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED.** **3. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, SHORNUR - 679 127.** - **ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/07/2014 IN IA 8738/2014.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY A.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 14591 of 2014 (Y)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.09.2013 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.3038/97 DATED 24.02.1997 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.474/97 DATED 13.01.1997 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.23551/98 DATED 09.07.1999 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.12676/05 DATED 15.04.2005 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.2(4) DATED 17.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.A2 5017/12 DATED 23.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.E2-7249/12 DATED 17.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.E 9-27106-12 DATED 09.01.2013 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------------------------** **EXT.R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.R1(b): THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH.** **EXT.R1(c): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Ms **v/** ## **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.** --------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(c) No. 14591 of 2014** ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20[th] day of November, 2014 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner avers that he has been working as a Contract Meter Reader (Water Meter) under the services of the respondent, Koppam Grama Panchayat, since 01.04.2009. It is his case that on the request of the said Panchayat, the employment exchange has sponsored some candidates against the regular vacancy in the post of PartTime Sweeper/Contingent Worker, that he apprehends that those candidates sponsored by the employment exchange alone would be considered for the selection to the said post, and that the candidates like the petitioner, who were not sponsored by the employment exchange, will be excluded from the zone of consideration by the authority concerned. 2. The petitioner contends that though he was also registered with the employment exchange, his name has W.P.(c) No. 14591 of 2014 2 not been forwarded by the employment exchange for consideration in the above selection process. In that context the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 representation before the second respondent praying that the petitioner also may be considered in the said selection process along with those who have been sponsored by the employment exchange. 3. The petitioner further contends that persons like the petitioner whose names have not been sponsored by the employment exchange have also a right to be considered for such public employment along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange as is laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court in _**State of Haryana v. Piara Singh**_ , AIR 1992 SC 2130, _**Kishore K.Pati v. Distt. Inspector of School, Midnapore & Ors.**_ , (2000) 9 SCC 405, and _**Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao & Ors**_ , (1996) 6 SCC 216. 4. The petitioner has also produced various judgments of this Court as in O.P.No.3038/1997 (Ext.P4), O.P.No.474/1997 (Ext.P5), O.P.No.23551/1998 (Ext.P6) W.P.(c) No. 14591 of 2014 3 and W.P.(C).No.12676/2005 (Ext.P7) to contend that, in similar circumstances, this Court has also directed consideration of candidature of such persons whose names have not been sponsored by the employment exchange, along with the candidates, who have been sponsored by the employment exchange, for the regular selection to posts in public service. 5. The prayers in the writ petition are for a declaration that refusal on the part of the respondentPanchayat to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Part-Time Sweeper/Contingent Worker is arbitrary, discriminatory and for mandamus to direct the respondent-Panchayat to consider the candidature of the petitioner also along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange for the selection for appointment to the post of Part-Time Sweeper/Contingent Worker under the respondent Panchayat and other related prayers. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vacancy in the post of Part-Time Sweeper/Contingent Worker has not so far been filled up by W.P.(c) No. 14591 of 2014 4 the respondent-Panchayat and that the grievance of the petitioner is still subsisting. In the decision in _**K.B.N. Visweswara Rao's case**_ (supra), this issue has been dealt with by the Apex Court. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that the contention that the candidates, who have not been sponsored by the employment exchange, should also be considered along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange is more acceptable and is more consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity . 7. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have his name sponsored, though his name is either registered or awaiting registration in the employment exchange. As a result, the choice of selection is restricted to only those of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. The Apex Court noted that, under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for selection for appointment to a post under the State and that better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate W.P.(c) No. 14591 of 2014 5 the employment exchange and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly in accordance with the seniority and reservation, as per the requisition and in addition, appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by the publication in newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins, and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this is procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved and the equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. This Court has also consistently followed the same view. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent-Panchayat to consider the name of the petitioner also for selection in the matter of appointment to the unfilled/available vacancies in the post of Part-Time Sweeper/Contingent Worker or other posts, subject to his fulfillment of the duly prescribed eligibility conditions and qualifications for such W.P.(c) No. 14591 of 2014 6 post. The respondent-Panchayat is also directed to intimate the petitioner as and when the regular vacancy is sought to be filled up and invite him for participation in the selection process, subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions and qualifications to hold the post. The writ petition stands finally disposed, with the above observations and directions. **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** DMR/-