V.C. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran, J.
Judgment Date: 2023-12-05
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P9 set aside; a direction to the competent Authority under the Act to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature, in accordance with law and procedural requirements, and to communicate the outcome as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P9 set aside; directive to reconsider candidature by the competent authority with compliance of procedural requirements; to be communicated within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.C. Anil Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala
Secretary, Law Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
The Law Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
The Additional Law Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
K. Viswanathan Nair
N. BENSER
Dileep Khan P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Balagovindan
• Lal Kumar N.

Counsels for Respondents

• N. Manoj Kumar
• M. Deepa
• S. Mohammed Al Rafi
• Unniraja
• T. I. Ajith Krishnan
• C. R. Sivakumar
• S. Rajeev
• P. Anoop (Mulavana)
• Sachithananda Pai
• K. Ranjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P9, a non-reasoned rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for appointment as a Notary. The petitioner asserts that the decision was driven by a ministerial intervention, which would contravene the statutory framework and the authority competent to decide such appointments. The respondent State contends that the candidate pool for Notary appointment was large and the selection necessitated an elimination process; Ext.P9 lapsed in furnishing reasons, but the overall process was driven by a need to select from among many applicants. The Court emphasizes the importance of a transparent, reasoned decision in public appointments, noting that causeless rejection undermines the integrity of the process. While acknowledging the State’s justification that vacancies were limited, the Court observes that Ext.P9’s lack of stated reasons is problematic and may cast doubt on the process and candidates’ credentials. The Court, however, does not rest the matter on technicalities alone; it finds merit in the petitioner’s challenge and proceeds to allow the petition, setting aside Ext.P9. It directs the competent Authority under the applicable Act to reconsider the candidature in scrupulous compliance with procedural requirements, and to communicate the resultant order within three months. The Court also cites Abdul Kareem M. T.P. v. State of Kerala (2023 (1) KHC 666) as precedent that the issues have been noticed and answered there.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P9 was illegal because the decision to reject was effectively taken by a Minister, who is not the competent authority under the statutory scheme; Ext.P9 provides no reasons for rejection, violating principles of fair and transparent appointment processes. The core grievance is the absence of justification for rejection and ministerial involvement in the decision.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that there were a large number of candidates, necessitating elimination and that Ext.P9 did not contain reasons due to the volume of applicants; if the Court is inclined to intervene, the matter can be reconsidered by the competent Authority with due regard to the credentials of others already appointed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abdul Kareem M. T.P. v. State of Kerala	2023 (1) KHC 666	Positive	The Court cites this decision as having already noticed and answered the same legal issues, indicating supportive precedent for the present approach.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 19495 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** V.C. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P. VELAYUDHA NAIR, RESIDING AT T. C 28/746, BINDU, PUNNAPURAM, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 024. BY ADVS. M.BALAGOVINDAN LAL KUMAR N.(K/2014/2021) ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,| ||GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69 1001.| |2|THE SECRETARY,| ||LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.| |3|THE LAW SECRETARY,| ||GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.| |4|TH ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY,| ||GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.| |5|K. VISWANATHAN NAIR,| ||AGED NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, PURNAMI,| ||PAZHAVILA, PANTHALACODE P.O., VATTAPRA,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 028.| |6|N. BENSER,| ||AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE| ||PUTHUKULANGARA VEEDU, SANTHWANAM,| ||MADATHATTUVILA, VATTAVILA P.O.,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 695 132.| |7|DILEEP KHAN P.,| ||AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, KURANDIPALLY,| ||VEEDU, UNDAPPARA, POOVACHAL P.O.,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 575.| W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 2 : 8 C.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, GREEN VILLA, MOTTAMOODU NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 020 9 SINDHU L., AGED NOT KNOWN ADVOCATE, KUNNIL HOUSE, NEAR IYYAR MADAM, PURAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 304. 10 LEDGAR BAVA.G., AGE NOT KNOWN,. ADVOCATE, CARMEL VILLA BENCH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 007. 11 ANITHA K., AGE NOT KNOWN , ADVOCATE T.C. 2/1645(1) GRA 361, NEAR GOWREESA TEMPLE, GOWRESSAPATTOM PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 004. 12 NISSAM, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, THETTIKUZHI HOUSE, CHANNANKARA P.O., KANIYAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 315. 13 V. PRATHAP SINGH, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, RETA VILAS, T.C. 8/888 , THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 006. 14 SREEJA TULASI, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, T.C. 24/1247 SREEPRIYA, VALIYASALA , CHALAI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695 036. 15 SANGEETHA, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, SEREEVALSOM, SNRA 72, SREE NAGAR, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 005. 16 P.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE T C 28/754, PUNNAPURAM, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA M.M.DEEPA S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI UNNIRAJA T.I. AJITH KRISHNAN C.R.SIVAKUMAR S.RAJEEV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) SACHITHANANDA PAI W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 3 : ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. D.KISHORE K.J.SAJI ISAAC K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN V.VINAY SARATH K.P. M.S.ANEER JOHN VARGHESE (VEYKKAN) R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA) JITHIN SAJI ISAAC ELIZABATH VARKEY S.G.SREEKANTH(K/755/2011) S.BADUSHA(K/673/2010) SREEJITH S.(K/002264/2019) JOEL ANTONY GEORGE(K/742/2020) FAHEEM AHSAN.S(K/001986/2019) U.V.DEEPU(K/957/2004) K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH STATE ATTORNEY() THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 4 : ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C).No. 19495 of 2021 ========================== Dated this the 5[th] day of December, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** When this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the parties were _ad idem_ that the legal issues involved in this case have already been noticed by a learned Judge of this Court and answered in **Abdul Kareem M. T.P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 666].** 2. Compendiously, the petitioner applied to be a Notary and was called for interview, as per the statutory mandate; but was then rejected through Ext.P9, without citing any reason. 3. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Lal Kumar N., that the sole reason why his client's candidature was rejected was because the files were placed before the Hon'ble Minister, who took a decision to such effect, but for no cogent reason. He argued that the Hon'ble Minister is neither the competent Authority, nor the Authorized officer under the statutory scheme; and, therefore, that Ext.P9 – which is the culmination of such rejection – is illegal and unlawful. 4. The learned Government Pleader – Sri.K.R.Ranjith, in response, submitted that the allegations of the petitioner are W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 5 : wholly untenable and uncharitable because, his candidature was not rejected for any reason which is confutative, but only because there were large number of candidates, requiring a process of elimination from among them, since the number of vacancies is extremely limited. He, however, conceded to a pointed question from this Court, that Ext.P9 does not cite any reason, nor does any of the pleadings on record offer it. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the case of the petitioner can be reconsidered by the competent Authority, adverting to his credentials, as also that of the persons who have already been appointed. 5. I have no doubt that the afore suggestion of the learned Government Pleader is the best available in the given circumstances, even for the respondents because, rejection of the candidature of a lawyer, who had applied for the post of Notary, without any reason, casts serious aspersions on his credentials. This is more so when, nothing has been placed on record as to why he has been found to be unsuitable for the post in question . In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority under the Act, to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner subject to law and in scrupulous compliance of the W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 6 : procedural requirements. The resultant order shall be communicated to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** anm W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 7 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19495/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.01.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE LAW SECRETARY TO THE| ||SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.08.2020| ||BEARING NO. 27872/H2/2013 /............| ||ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY,| ||GOVERNESS OF KERALA.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED ON| ||02.11.2020 UNDER RTI ACT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION, SUBMITTED BY| ||STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, LAW| ||DEPARTMENT DATED 301.2020 BEARING NO.| ||16525/H2/2020/.............| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF LIST OF APPLICANT ATTENDED| ||THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED FOR NOTARY| ||APPOINTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF LIST OF ADVOCATES WHO HAVE| ||APPOINTED AS NOTARIES 2020| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2021| ||UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER LAW| ||DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 10.03.2021| ||BEARING NO. 4045/H2/2021/LAW SUBMITTED BY| ||STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, LAW| ||DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 07.05.2021| ||BEARING NO. 27872/H2/2013/... ISSUED BY| ||THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED| ||27TH JANUARY 2021 BEARING NO.| ||334/H2/2021/LAW OF LAW (H), DEPARTMENT| ||PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE| ||SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES| ||AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED| ||25.06.2021 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R6(a)|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/8/2020| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |Exhibit R10(a)|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||24.08.2020 INTIMATING THE PLACE, DATE AND| ||TIME OF INTERVIEW.| W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021 : 8 : Exhibit R15(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R16(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW Exhibit R16(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 26524/H2/LAW DATED 12.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit R16(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE ISSUED TO P.S RADHAKRISHNAN