V.O. Raju and Others v. State of Kerala and Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 10965 of 2015** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** **---------------** ## **1 V.O.RAJU** **AGED 52 YEARS,GEEVARGHESE UNNOONNY, VENGASSERI MELETHIL, KODUMON PO), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** ## **2 R. UDYAKUMAR,** **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN KURUP, OTTAPPLAMVILAYIL, ANGADIKKAL NORTH PO, KAIPATTOR (PO), PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **3 P.K. RAJAN PILLAI** **AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHUPURAKKAL, KADAPRA PO, KUMBANAND, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** **4 T. VIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O MADHAVA KURUP, CHEMBAKASSERIL, KANNIDA-KURUMBA KARA (PO), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** ## **5 NEELAMBARAN P** **AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. C.KUTTY, CHARUVILAYIL, ILLAMANNOOR POST, PATHANAMTHITTA** - **6 JOYKUTTY PAPPI** - **S/O. K.K. PAPPY, KALATHOOR MELETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUVATTA, ADOOR(PO), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523** ## **BY ADV.SRI.K.MOHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** **2. PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM – 696004** **WP(C).No. 10965 of 2015** ## **--------------------------------** **3. MANU PAPPACHAN, S/O PAPPACHAN, VEHICLE HELPER,** **KODUMON GROUP LATEX FACTORY,** - **P.O.NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 693** **4. ULLAS, VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON GROUP LATEX FACTORY,** - **P.O.NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 693** **5. HAREENDRALAL, VEHICLE HELPER OIL PALM, KALADI PLANTATION(P.O.), KALADI VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683 583** **6. SHAIJU P.J., VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION (P.O.) KALADI VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683 583** - **7 JAISON V.M., VEHICLE HELPER KODUMON GROUP LATEX FACTORY, PO NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL,KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 693** - **8 BIJU M.V VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION(P.O.), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** - **9 BIJU K.P** - **VEHICLE HELPER, KALADI PLANTATION(P.O.), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** - **10 SHAJI M.K.,** - **VEHICLE HELPER, PANNITHODE ESTATE,** - **PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,** - **PANNITHODE PO),PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 555** - **11 PRAKASAN K.K., VEHICLE HELPER,** - **T.S.R.FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION (PO), KALADI VIA.,** - **ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** - **12 BIJU K.P** - **VEHICLE HEPLER, PERAMBARA ESTATE PLANTATION CORPORATION** - **OF KERALA LTD., MUTHUKAD (P.O.)** - **PERUVANNAMOOZHI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 528** - **13 SHIBU K.N** - **VEHICLE HELPER, ATHIRAPPALLI ESTATE, KALADI PLANTATION** - **(PO), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** - **14 MOHANAN K.,** - **VEHICLE HEPLER, ATHIRAPPALLI ESTATE, KALADI PLANTATION** - **(PO), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** - **15 SHAJU C.V., VEHICLE HELPER, TSR FACTORY, KALDI PLANTATION (PO), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** **WP(C).No. 10965 of 2015** **---------------------------** ## **16 SANJAYAN KS** **VEHICLE HELPER, KODUMON ESTATE, PO NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 693** - **17 C.S. SHAIJU, VEHICLE HELPER,** **PERAMBRA ESTATE PLANTATION COPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,** **MUTHUKAD (PO), PERUVANNAMOOZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 528** - **18 SIBY P.D.,** **VEHICLE HELPER, TSR FACTORY. KALADI PLANTATION (PO), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** ## **19 JOMY V.C** **VEHICLE HELPER, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADI PLANTATION (PO), KALADI VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583** - **20 JOY P.B.,** **VEHICLE HELPER, CHANDANAPPILLY ESTATE, P.O., NEDUMANKAV, KOODAL , KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 693** **R3-R20 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)** **R3-R20 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA, SC,** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH N., SC,** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. RON BASTIAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.16246 OF 2015 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 10965 of 2015 (U)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1:PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED TO PETITIONERS 1,3,4,5 AND 6 DATED 14.11.2013** **EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.2 DATED 15.11.2013** **EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER INTIMATING INTERVIEW ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER 1,3,4,5 AND 6 DATED28.11.2014** **EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 UDAYAKUMAR R. DATED 26.11.2014** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE CORPORATION** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **PA TO JUDGE** **rk** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** All these writ petitioners are filed by workers in the Plantation Corporation, challenging the selection and appointment of Vehicle helpers. Therefore, these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. The parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.(C) No.22117 of 2015. 2. The Plantation Corporation-(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P1 notice on 27.06.2013, inviting applications from qualified permanent workers of the Corporation, for appointment to the post of Vehicle Helpers, against the vacancies existing and anticipated within the next two years. The qualification prescribed were: knowledge of reading and writing, valid **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 2 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** light motor vehicle driving license, physical fitness and normal vision. It was stated that the appointment would be made after conducting a selection, to be made on the basis of attendance, assessment of their performance, seniority, suitability and marks in the written test. The last date for receipt of applications was 20.07.2013. It was notified that a written test would be held for the qualified candidates and that the final rank list would be prepared after conducting the interview from among those, who qualified in the written test. 3. The petitioners submitted applications and appeared in the written test and thereafter in the interview held on 15.12.2014. Ext.P2 rank list was published thereafter. It was stated that the candidates, who have secured 35% and above marks in the written test were subjected to interview and that rank list would be valid for two years from 15.12.2014. 84 candidates were included in **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 3 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** Ext.P2 rank list, in which Rank No.1 is having 44.50 marks and the last candidate is having 31.75 marks. According to the petitioners, there is no basis for awarding marks under the head “written test weightage”, on account of which the rank of the petitioners got lowered and they are denied appointment based on their merit. 4. The writ petitions are filed challenging selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 20, who have been working as Vehicle helpers based on the impugned selection. While admitting the writ petition on 21.07.2015, this Court has made it clear that the appointment to the post of vehicle helpers shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. All the party respondents have entered appearance. 5. The petitioners challenge Ext.P3, rank list as well as Ext.P2, evaluation list, on the ground that the same is arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory. It is alleged that the inclusion of written test weightage and refusal to **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 4 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** incorporate the marks for academic qualification and length of service, as was being done in the previous selections. It is stated in the rank lists Exts.P4 and P5 published by the 1[st] respondent after the interview held on 04.12.2014, marks were given only for practical test, total service, academic qualification and interview. In Ext.P4 list, it was stated that one mark was given as service weightage for each completed year of service, 5 marks for SSLC and 5 marks for passing pre-degree. In Ext.P5, list, marks were awarded only for written test, total service, academic qualification and for interview. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent Corporation adopted a novel procedure in order to induct their favourites. 6. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that 92 applications were received for appointment as Vehicles Helpers pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. On receipt of the applications, the Corporation arranged for the written test, through an independent person and **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 5 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** Mechanical Engineer of the Rubber Board was entrusted to conduct the written test. Accordingly, Mr.Thomson, Mechanical Engineer, Rubber Board conducted the written test on 22.11.2013. Those who secured more than 17.5 marks out of 50 (i.e.,35%) were called for interview by the Sub committee constituted by the Board of the Corporation, as per the resolution passed by the Board held on 02.12.2014. Out of the 90 candidates, who appeared in the written test, 86 candidates got qualified for the interview. The Sub committee consist of Chairman, Managing Director, Representative of Agricultural Department in the Board, Advocate E.R. Santhosh Kumar, Sri.A. Nizar, Director and a Subject Expert also conducted the interview. Mr. Thomson, Mechanical Engineer, Rubber Board was the subject expert included in the Sub committee. The Sub committee conducted the interview on 15.12.2014. 84 candidates appeared for the interview. Those who secured marks between the minimum pass mark of 17.5 and maximum of **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 6 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** 29 were given weightage of 25, those who got marks between 30 and 39 were given a weightage of 27 and those who obtained 40 marks and above were given a weightage of 30. The candidates were required to have the practical knowledge in driving.. It is stated that qualification prescribed for appointment of workers in the Corporation, is: should have studied upto 10[th] standard . In Paragraph 4 , it is stated as follows:- “ in order to be appointed as work man, the education qualification specified is only up to 10[th] Standard ie, that they must know how to read and write. As a result for a level playing ground, marks were not awarded for educational qualification. Written test was conducted to assess the basic knowledge of the candidates and because of the variation in educational level, minimal importance was given to the written test marks and more importance had to be given to practical knowledge based on the evaluation. Hence the classification and weightage was done as above. The interview marks were awarded taking into consideration, the performance and other necessary criteria”. **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 7 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** 7. It is further stated that since written test essentially assess the theoretical knowledge of the candidate, other aspects which make the candidate fit for the job has to be assessed in the interview; at the same time, the candidate, who have got highest marks in the written test may not have practical knowledge in driving or necessary common sense and aptitude. It is stated that Ext.P2 and P3 selection lists are prepared in accordance with rules after a transparent selection, purely on the basis of merit. It is also stated that the 1[st] respondent has published the rank list in the notice board in the head office as is the normal practice. 8. The respondent nos. 2 to 20 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that they were appointed as per order dated 26.03.2015, on the basis of their ranks in Ext.P2, rank list. It is further stated that they appeared in the process of selection and got higher marks on the basis of their performance in the written test, interview etc. It is their case that candidates, who got higher marks in the **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 8 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** written test, may not have practical knowledge in driving, necessary common sense and intelligence and that the petitioners are persons challenging the selection after participating in the process of selection and after they became unsuccessful. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents. 10. The 1[st] respondent has not produced any rules or materials, relating to the awarding of marks for the post of vehicle helper under the head “written test weightage”. Ext.P3, evaluation statement of the candidates contains the marks in Written test, Written test Weightage, Marks awarded by four of the members of the interview board, Average Marks and Total Marks. The evaluation statement is seen signed by the Chairman, Managing Director, three Directors and Subject Expert from Rubber Board. **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 9 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** 11. From the rank list/selection list for the previous years/occasions, produced as Ext P5 and P6, it is seen that marks were awarded for the written test, interview as well as for the number of years of service rendered and qualification. In Ext.P3, evaluation list marks are not seen awarded for academic qualification or for length of service in the Corporation. At the same time, it was notified in Ext.P1, that selection would be made after assessment of their performance including their attendance, on the basis of seniority, suitability and merit in the written test. At any rate, Ext.P1 did not provide that marks would be awarded under the head of 'written test weightage'. No marks are seen awarded to attendance or seniority in the present selection, whereas marks were awarded to length of service and educational qualification in the previous selection and there was no head of written test weightage in any of selections held on any previous occasion. **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 10 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** 12 **.** The only reason stated for awarding marks for written test weightage is the variation in educational level of the workers. According to the respondents, minimum importance is given to the marks in the written test and more importance is given to practical knowledge based on evaluation. The Sub Committee is seen to have taken a decision to give weightage of 25, 27 and 30 marks respectively, for those who got marks in the written test between 17.5 to 29, 30 to 39 and 40 and above, respectively. Such a criteria is not seen published. It is not clear how they fixed such a criteria. From the pleadings it is seen that awarding such weightage was to the detriment of the candidates who got higher marks in the written test. 13. Respondents do not have a case that, there was any decision by the Selection committee to award marks for the written test weightage before the commencement of the process of selection. It is clear that even the Sub Committee was constituted only after the written test was conducted. It **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 11 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** is also not clear whether the Corporation had laid down any norms for selection which provided for awarding such weightage marks. No rule or regulation is pointed out which provides for giving weightage to written test. As rightly pointed out by the petitioners, most of them would have ranked above the party respondents in case such weightage marks was not added. The Full Bench of this court has in the _:_ judgment in _**Keshav Mohan v. University of Kerala 2009(4) KLT 573**_ , while considering the question regarding selection of Controller of Examination of Kerala University, held that Selection Committee will not have any inherent jurisdiction or authority to evolve its own norms for conducting selection, in the absence of any norms laid down in the statutory provisions or in administrative instructions. Laid down by the Corporation, no reason is stated either for deviating the procedure in this selection or for taking such a decision in the midst of the process of selection. Assuming that it is a settled law that criteria for the selection shall be **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 12 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** fixed before the commencement of the selection as held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments starting from **K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.:(2008) 3 SCC 512,** Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India, etc though it was doubted and referred for consideration by a larger bench in **Tej Prakash Pathak V Rajasthan High Court: (2013)** . As long as, it is not discernible from Ext.P1 or any other materials that such marks would be assessed for the purpose of determining the ranks of the candidates and the marks are seen awarded in variation of the procedure adopted in the previous selections and even to the procedure notified in Ext P1, I find that the rank list, Ext.P2 is liable to be interfered with. The evaluation statement Ext.P3, to the extent it awards marks under the head 'written test weightage', to the extent it does not consider the marks towards seniority/length of service or attendance as notified in Ext P1, is illegal. Therefore the appointment of the respondents 2 to 20 would also be illegal, as a natural consequence. **W.P.(C) Nos. 10965, 16246, 22083 & 22117 of 2015 13 & W.P.(C) Nos. 31929 of 2016** In the above circumstances of the case, Ext P2 rank list shall stand quashed. The 1[st] respondent is directed to take emergent steps to re-draw the rank list in accordance with rules on the basis of the marks in the written test and interview, the attendance and seniority in time with the notification Ext.P1. In case, there is any rules which provides that marks are to be awarded towards the experience and academic qualification as done in Exts.P3 and P4 select list, the respondent shall also award marks for the same while re-drawing the rank list. This shall be done within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the party respondents would be allowed to continue provisionally. **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE rk/07.06.2018