Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 158 (KER)

G. Lathika v. Rubber Board

2002-03-04

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

body2002
Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Ext. P4 Press Report to the effect that for appointment as Junior Rubber Technologist, O.B.C. candidates with B. Tech. Qualification in Polymer Science and Rubber Technology and one year's experience, or B. Tech in Chemical Engineering and one year's experience or five year's experience in Polymer Technology and a Diploma in Polymer Technology could apply caught the attention of the petitioner. From the Employment Exchange where she had registered she came to know that the vacancy was in the 1st respondent - Rubber Board. As per Ext. P7 notification issued by the 1st respondent on 6.10.1995 the qualifications actually prescribed for the said post were B. Tech Degree in Polymer Science and Rubber Technology with a minimum of one year experience in Rubber Products Development/Testing or Diploma in Polymer Technology or Rubber Technology with five years experience in Rubber Product Manufacture. 2. The petitioner who registered herself in the Employment Exchange found that she was not called for interview though her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore she sent Ext. P5 representation and was told by the Board, vide Ext. P6, that her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange only two months after the last date prescribed in the notification and therefore she could not be considered. The petitioner thereupon filed O.P. No. 4836 of 1996 before this Court and in Ext. P9 judgment this court noticing the fact that the appointment had not yet been made, directed that the petitioner should also be interviewed and the selection made taking into account the result of such interview also. As per Ext. P10 the petitioner was informed that she was not selected. Thereupon she sent Ext. P11 notice through her lawyer and in Ext. P12 reply the petitioner was informed by the Board through the lawyer concerned that the post had been intended to be filled up in the Laboratory at Calcutta and that subsequently the proposal was discontinued and hence the select list drawn on 11.1.1996 (Ext. P8) wherein the present second respondent's name figures as holder of 1st rank was cancelled. The petitioner's grievance is that inspite of the said specific statement, the second respondent was admitted by the Rubber Board through back door on 21.8.1997. P8) wherein the present second respondent's name figures as holder of 1st rank was cancelled. The petitioner's grievance is that inspite of the said specific statement, the second respondent was admitted by the Rubber Board through back door on 21.8.1997. It is also pointed out that the second respondent has only a Diploma and not the Degree mentioned as the main qualification in the notification. 3. The standing counsel for the Rubber Board, who was heard, submitted that it was without noticing the fact that Ext. P8 selection list had been cancelled that Ext. R2(c)appointment was issued to the 2nd respondent on 21.8.1997 and that if there was any mistake or wrong committed by the Board, the Board was prepared to make amends. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that for the fault, if any, of the Board the second respondent might not be penalized and that it was after resigning the post of workshop Instructor in the Government Polytechnic, Kottayam that he took up employment of the Rubber Board, that he is now aged 42 and is overaged for any appointment in government service and that for the fault, if any, on the part of the Rubber Board the second respondent is not responsible. 5. There is no dispute that the Rubber Board comes within the scope of definition of State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. All appointments under the Board have to be strictly governed by the mandates and prohibition contained in Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India as also the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Others (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628) is authority for the proposition that the state's acts in exercise of its power/discretion are subject to the constitutional law/public law limitations and that it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person of its like or at its sweet will; but its acts must be in conformity with the principles which meet the test of reason and relevance. 6. What is evident from the exhibits produced in the case is that throwing all such principles to the winds the second respondent was admitted through the back door. The specific information conveyed to the petitioner vide Ext. P12 on 2.9.1996 was that Ext. P8 select list dt. 18.1.1996 was cancelled. 6. What is evident from the exhibits produced in the case is that throwing all such principles to the winds the second respondent was admitted through the back door. The specific information conveyed to the petitioner vide Ext. P12 on 2.9.1996 was that Ext. P8 select list dt. 18.1.1996 was cancelled. No fresh notification was issued for the post. The appointment is now made on the ground that after the cancellation of the post in Calcutta another post was created or came into being at Kottayam and that to fill up that post that the second respondent was appointed. If a new vacancy had arisen and if the list had been cancelled as stated in Ext. P12 dated 2.9.1996 it is inexplicable as to how appointment could be made from the same list published on 18.1.1996 in favour of the second respondent. In the circumstances, whatever be the difficulties caused to the second respondent, the appointment given to him vide Ext. R2(c) letter dated 21.8.1997 which was without any Public Notification, intimation to the Employment Exchange or through fresh selection process cannot be allowed to stand. The effect of Ext. P12 is that Ext. R2(b) was dead once and for all. There is no question of resurrecting that list to suit the convenience of the second respondent while shutting out opportunities to qualified candidates on the queue to apply for the post with opportunity to be interviewed and considered. The original Petition is hence allowed and it is declared that the appointment of the second respondent as Junior Rubber Technologist in the Rubber Board vide Ext. R2(c) is illegal and against the provisions of law. The first respondent is directed to terminate the appointment of the second respondent forthwith and to fill up the post after due compliance with the legal formalities, including public notice and intimation to the Employment Exchange concerned.