Yeldhos Philip v. Mission Director, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (Kerala) and Abdul Nazar.T v. Mission Director, MGNREGS Kerala (WP(C) Nos. 17906/2023 & 18301/2023)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17906 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` YELDHOS PHILIP AGED 60 YEARS S/O.V.PHILIP, QUALITY MONITOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MGNREGS, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NJATTUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, EMILY, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH GOURI BALAGOPAL ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN SREELEKSHMI A.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE MISSION DIRECTOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (KERALA), PUBLIC OFFICE, REVENUE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 2THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MGNREGS, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122 3THE JOINT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR (MGNREGS), CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 SMT.K.G.SAROJINI[GP] ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).18301/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18301 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ABDUL NAZAR.T., AGED 60 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), QUALITY CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MGNREGS, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NEST HOUSE, PINANGODE.P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH GOURI BALAGOPAL ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN SREELEKSHMI A.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE MISSION DIRECTOR MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (KERALA), PUBLIC OFFICE, REVENUE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 2THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MGNREGS, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122 3THE JOINT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, (MGNREGS), CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN – 673122 SMT.K.G.SAROJINI - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).17906/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **`[WP(C) Nos.17906/2023, 18301/2023]`** The petitioners in these two writ petitions impugn the orders issued by the District Collector/District Programme Co-ordinator of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (Kerala) (‘Scheme’ for short), whereby, they have been terminated from service merely saying that their work has been found to be unsatisfactory and that they have not exhibited the competence and the sincerity required to be ‘Quality Monitors’. They assert that the impugned order, which has been produced as Ext.P4 along with W.P(C)No.17906 of 2023 and as Ext.P2 in W.P(C)No.18301 of 2023, does not cite any cogent reason; but creates a stigma against them, without even an enquiry. They thus pray that the impugned orders be set aside. 2. Sri.K.R.Ganesh – learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases – which have been heard together taking note of the similarity and the circumstances presented – argued that, as is evident from the impugned orders, the District Programme Coordinator has issued them solely based on a report furnished to him by the Joint Programme Co-ordinator. He asserted that, however, this report was neither made available to his clients, nor their ## **`WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 4`** version called for, thus leading to an enquiry; but that the impugned orders have nevertheless been issued in a stigmatic manner, which would create prejudice to them in the future also. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 3. Smt.K.G.Sarojini – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the afore assertions of the petitioners are factually incorrect because their competence as ‘Quality Monitors’ had been assessed several times in the past, but were found wanting every time. She submitted that, as has been recorded in the impugned orders, even though they were requested several times to mend their ways, they did not do so and hence that their continuance as ‘Quality Monitors’ became untenable, since it would play havoc with the Scheme itself if the activities are not properly monitored. She thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 4. Though I do not propose to go into the rival contentions of the parties, it must be said upfront that the impugned orders certainly appear to have been issued by the District Programme Coordinator solely based on the report of the Joint Programme Coordinator. There is no mention in the said orders that the report had been made available to the petitioners, or their version recorded by the District Programme Co-ordinator. Much less, it does not even ## **`WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 5`** mention about any enquiry. 5. The law is now been well settled through the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including in _**Arunkumar V. v. Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Tvm. and Others**_ _**[2015(5)KHC 549]**_ that, even with respect to persons who are not permanent in service, a stigmatic removal would require a proper enquiry or assessment of their contentions. 6. In the case at hand, it does not appear that there has been any such, at least _prima facie,_ since the impugned orders is silent about any steps having been taken in that regard. 7. In the afore circumstances I am certain that the impugned orders cannot find my favour, though the District Programme Coordinator will be at full liberty to reconsider the matter, after hearing the petitioners and after serving them copies of the report of the Joint Programme Co-ordinator. Resultantly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside; with a consequential direction to the District Collector/District Programme Co-ordinator to reconsider the entire matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, furnishing them copies of all relevant inputs which are ## **`WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 6`** sought to be relied upon against them; thus culminating in an appropriate order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that this Court has not evaluated the merits of the rival contentions and that it will be up to the District Programme Co-ordinator to deal with the matter appositely, including by causing an enquiry if it is found warranted; but his opinion in the matter will be reflected in the resultant order specifically. I clarify that the continuation of the petitioners in the post concerned will depend upon the decision to be taken by the District Programme Co-ordinator in terms of the afore directions. For an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioners to appear before the District Collector/District Programme Co-ordinator at 11.00 a.m. on 26.08.2023. Sd/- ## **`DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ``` MC/21.8 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 7`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17906/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT JOINT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR TO THE PETITIONER REQUIRING TO BE PRESENT FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS ON 31.12.2020. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 19.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPRECIATION LETTER DATED 29.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 669/2019 DATED 17.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TERMINATING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. A/669/2019 DATED 08.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO- ORDINATOR ``` ## **`WP(C) NO.17906 & 18301/2023 8`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18301/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 669/2019 DATED 17.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TERMINATING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE. ```