Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 503 (KER)

Preetha A. K. v. State of Kerala

2017-03-10

P.V.ASHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : P.V. Asha, J. The petitioner who is an Advocate practicing in the courts at Ernakulam for the last 19 years has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings for appointment to the post of Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, applying the rules of reservation while seeking a declaration of her entitlement for appointment on the basis of her rank in the select list. She is also seeking a declaration that the 3rd respondent is not fit to be appointed as Industrial Tribunal. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Labour and Skills Department, had by Ext.P1 letter 12.4.2016, requested the Advocate General, the Industrial Tribunals and the Presiding Officers of Labour Courts, to forward a panel of Advocates for appointment as Industrial Tribunals, Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram. The letter reads as follows: "I am directed to request you to forward a panel of Advocates who are qualified for appointment as Judge of High Court (read with decisions reported in 1970 KHC 390, 1970 (1) SCC 182 , 2009 KHC 4896 and decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mahesh Chander Gupta v. Union of India and others) for selection to the post of Industrial Tribunals at Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram." 3. Thereafter the Additional Chief Secretary issued Ext. P2 letter dated 18.11.2016, informing the petitioner that she was included in the panel of advocates for selection to the post of Industrial Tribunals at Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram and requested her to appear for the interview on 15.12.2016, with the testimonials mentioned therein in proof of qualification, identity, enrolment and experience certificates for verification. It was also stated that those who are eligible for communal reservation should submit the certificates to prove the caste/community at the time of interview. 4. Petitioner is an open merit candidate. She appeared for the interview. Government thereafter as per Ext.P3-G.O.(P) No.204/2016/LBR dated 31.12.2016, notified the select list of candidates prepared by the selection committee, constituted as per G.O(Ms) No.159/2016/LBR dated 7.10.2016, in the order of merit, for appointment as Industrial Tribunal, Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st rank holder belongs to OBC/LC with 65.66 marks. The petitioner who belongs to general category with 62 marks was ranked 2. The 3rd respondent with 61.66 marks and belonging to OBC/Ezhava community, is ranked No.3. Altogether there are 8 candidates including three candidates belonging to OBC, out of which, respondent No.3 and rank No.8 belong to OBC/Ezhava. The 1st rank holder belongs to OBC/LC with 65.66 marks. The petitioner who belongs to general category with 62 marks was ranked 2. The 3rd respondent with 61.66 marks and belonging to OBC/Ezhava community, is ranked No.3. Altogether there are 8 candidates including three candidates belonging to OBC, out of which, respondent No.3 and rank No.8 belong to OBC/Ezhava. The petitioner filed this writ petition on coming to know that the 3rd respondent, who is ranked below her, is going to be appointed as Industrial Tribunal at Idukki, applying the rules of reservation. 5. By way of amendment to the writ petition, through I.A. No.4236 of 2017, the petitioner has stated that the 3rd respondent is an accused in C.C. 452/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peerumedu. She has produced Ext.P4 final report filed in the court, in which the 3rd respondent is the 3rd accused, charged for offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 294B, 241, 506(1) and 427 read with 149 of the IPC. It is therefore stated that being an accused in a criminal case, that too where he was alleged to have abused and obstructed the Principal of a Private College with deadly weapons, the 3rd respondent is disqualified for appointment as Industrial Tribunal; he is not fit for appointment in a judicial post. It was also pointed out that the selection committee would not have looked into these aspects or the conduct and character of the 3rd respondent, while including him in the select list. At any rate Government is bound to look into these aspects before appointment is made to the post. The petitioner has also sought for a further relief or a declaration that the 3rd respondent is not qualified to be appointed as Industrial Tribunal on account of his being accused in CC No.452 of 2015. 6. Petitioner's case is that the rules of reservation were never applied in the appointment of Industrial Tribunals in the State and there is no dearth of representation of backward communities or even Ezhava community among the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals. It is pointed out that the Industrial Tribunals at Thrissur and the Industrial Tribunal at Alappuzha are manned by officers belonging to Ezhava community. 7. Petitioner submits that when the panel was called for, nothing was stated regarding the applicability of reservation. It is pointed out that the Industrial Tribunals at Thrissur and the Industrial Tribunal at Alappuzha are manned by officers belonging to Ezhava community. 7. Petitioner submits that when the panel was called for, nothing was stated regarding the applicability of reservation. It is stated that Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides for the constitution of the Industrial Tribunals, does not provide for any reservation in appointments; there is no provision of law which prescribes the procedure to be followed for appointment of Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunals do not come under the State or subordinate services under the State; it is not governed by any special rules. Therefore, Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules are not applicable to the appointment. It is also the case of petitioner that unless and until it is notified that there is a proposal to apply the principles of reservation, Rules 14 to 17 of KS&SSR cannot be invoked for an appointment to the post which is not included in the State or Subordinate service or not covered by any of the Special Rules. It is further stated that Ext.P3 select list has been published for appointment as Industrial Tribunals at Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore what was envisaged was a separate appointment treating the Industrial Tribunals as separate entities. It is the cases of the petitioner that the rules of reservation are applied for the first time for appointment to these posts, solely for the purpose of inducting the 3rd respondent who was the Secretary of the local committee of Communist Party of India (Marxist) as Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. 8. The only provision which provides for the constitution of Industrial Tribunal is section 7A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The procedure for appointment is not provided anywhere else. 8. The only provision which provides for the constitution of Industrial Tribunal is section 7A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The procedure for appointment is not provided anywhere else. Relevant portion of Rule 14 of the KS&SSR provides as follows: "Where the special rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category, or where in the case of any service, class or category for which no special rules have been issued, the Government have by notification in the Gazette declared that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such service, class or category, appointments by direct recruitment to such service, class or category shall be made on the following basis: xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx It is submitted that there is neither any special rule nor any notification in the gazette declaring that the principles of reservation will apply to the appointment of Industrial Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner made available a copy of G.O.(Ms) No.88/93/LBR dated 30.10.1993/SRO No.1739/93 by which the Industrial Tribunal were constituted with headquarters at Idukki and other at Palakkad. In the explanatory note to the notification, it is stated that in order to facilitate speedy disposal of cases and reducing the pendency in Industrial Tribunals it has been decided to constitute new Industrial Tribunal with headquarters at Idukki and Palakkad in addition to the existing Industrial Tribunal at Kollam, Alappuzha and Kozhikode. It was pointed out that M/s Renjith Kumar and P.V. Abraham were appointed in 1993 simultaneously to two Industrial Tribunals without observing any rules of reservation. The learned Counsel made available a press release of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment on 6.3.2013, in respect of appointment against the vacancies of Presiding Officers of Central Govt. Industrial Tribunals, where it is stated that there is no provision for reservation for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for appointment to the post of Presiding Officers in the Act. 10. It is therefore pointed out that each of the Industrial Tribunals are having separate headquarters and each of these are separate entities. It is also stated that normally these are not transferable posts and it is only when the incumbents on the Tribunals request for the same that Government by virtue of special orders transfer them and appoint them to other Tribunal. It is also stated that normally these are not transferable posts and it is only when the incumbents on the Tribunals request for the same that Government by virtue of special orders transfer them and appoint them to other Tribunal. It is pointed out that the vacancy of Industrial Tribunals at Idukki arose on transfer of the incumbent therein to Thrissur on his request. Sri. P.Ramakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that Industrial Tribunal at Idukki is a solitary post and application of communal reservation for appointment to that single post would amount to cent percent reservation which is against the well settled legal position, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 214 ; Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Faculty Association and others, (1998) 4 SCC 1 ; State of Karnataka v. K. Govindappa, (2009) 1 SCC 1 ; State of U.P. v. Bharat Singh, (2011) 4 SCC 120 . The judgment in Suresh Chandra Verma (Dr) v. Chancellor, Nagpur University, (1990) 4 SCC 55 , was relied on contending that rules of reservation can be applied only after publication in the notification. Relying on the judgment in N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1 it was argued that the 3rd respondent is unfit for appointment in view of the criminal background. The judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 was also referred to in this context. It was argued that the 3rd respondent was involved in a crime and that itself was for obstructing the official duties of a Principal of a college would indicate the conduct of that candidate. Therefore, even if he is acquitted or the prosecution case is withdrawn on settlement, he cannot be said to be a person who is fit to be appointed as Judge. It is pointed out that appointments to judicial post for which qualifications equivalent to that of Judge of High Court has to made only from among persons without any cloud on their conduct. It is not in the case of an appointment to a clerical post to wait for the character and antecedence after appointment. It is pointed out that appointments to judicial post for which qualifications equivalent to that of Judge of High Court has to made only from among persons without any cloud on their conduct. It is not in the case of an appointment to a clerical post to wait for the character and antecedence after appointment. The nature of the post requires that the character and conduct, reliability as well as integrity will have to be ascertained before the appointment itself. It was also pointed out that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Industrial Tribunal, Idukki immediately after his resignation as Secretary of the Local Committee of CPI(M) in Idukki cannot be permitted. 11. The learned Advocate General furnished a gazette notification - G.O.(P) No.41/2016/LBR dated 19.2.2016 by which two more Industrial Tribunals were constituted in the State-one with headquarters at Thiruvananthapuram and the other at Thrissur, in addition to the Industrial Tribunals at Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Thrissur and Palakkad. Thereafter the presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal at Idukki requested for a transfer to Trissur and he was granted transfer accordingly. As a result of the transfer, it became necessary to make appointment to both the vacant posts at Idukki and Thiruvanathapuram. The panel of Advocates were called for as per Exts.P1. The selection committee decided to make appointments invoking rules of reservation and accordingly, when call letters like Ext P2 were issued, it was requested the candidates to furnish the necessary documents in proof of eligibility for reservation. The learned Advocate General furnished the copy of the minutes of the selection committee which met on 18.11.2016, when it decided that the principles of reservation under rule 14 to 17 of KSSR would be followed in making the appointment. The selection committee was constituted by appointing Retired Justice V.K. Mohanan as Chairman, Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department as Convener and Law Secretary as member. In the meeting held on 18.11.2016 itself the selection committee decided that for appointment of Industrial Tribunals at Thiruvananthapuram and Idukki, rules of reservation under Rules 14 to 17 of KSSR would be observed. After the interview and preparation of select list, the select list was placed before the cabinet and cabinet, on 1.3.2017, decided that the first appointment given to rank no 1 in open merit and the 2nd appointment should be given to 3rd respondent rank no.3 in the reservation turn in OBC/Ezhava. 12. After the interview and preparation of select list, the select list was placed before the cabinet and cabinet, on 1.3.2017, decided that the first appointment given to rank no 1 in open merit and the 2nd appointment should be given to 3rd respondent rank no.3 in the reservation turn in OBC/Ezhava. 12. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that it is within the competence of the selection committee to decide whether the rules of reservation are to be applied or not. The panel of Advocates was called for, for both the Tribunals together and when the call letters were issued, there was sufficient indication for the candidates to note that the principles of reservation would be observed in the appointment. It is pointed out that Rule 14 of KS&SSR would apply only at the time of appointment. Referring to the definition of 'recruited direct' in Rule 2(12) of Part I KS&SSR, it is argued that in a case where recruitment is not made through Public Service Commission, a candidate need have the qualifications prescribed for the post only at the time of appointment. Reservation is applicable only at the time of appointment and therefore absence of a notification in the gazette, prescribed in Rule 14 of KS&SSR before the invitation of panel or before selection or publication of rank list will not in any manner affect the proceedings or the decision of the selection committee. A notification need be published immediately before the appointment only, in order to satisfy the conditions in the provisions in Rule 14. 13. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is unfit it is stated that he is discharged in the criminal case and that those are not matters not to be considered by the selection committee as long as there is no disqualification for the 3rd respondent to become an industrial tribunal. According to the learned Advocate General the appointment is from a panel of lawyers forwarded to the Government and the selection committee, which was constituted by a retired Judge of the High Court as Chairman and the additional Chief Secretary as Convener and the Law Secretary as a member and has found the candidate fit for appointment. The appointment would be made subject to verification of his character and antecedents. The appointment would be made subject to verification of his character and antecedents. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is not disqualified to be a Presiding Officer at Idukki on account of the fact that he was the secretary of a political party in Idukki, as he has already resigned from the post. The learned A.G argued that the involvement in social activities can in no manner be a disqualification pointing out the instances where legal luminaries who were social activists as well as office bearers of political parties within the state as well as outside the State. It is also argued that the character of antecedents is to be verified only after the appointment. 14. Shri P.C. Sasidharan appearing for the 3rd respondent argued that the writ petition itself was premature since there is no appointment made so far and the question of communal reservation comes only at the time of appointment. It was also argued that the character and antecedents of the 3rd respondent need be looked into only after appointment and not before appointment, as provided in Rule 10 (b) of KS&SSR. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is not challenging the select list or the rank assigned to the 3rd respondent or his inclusion in the select list. Moreover there is also no challenge as against the members of the selection committee. It is also pointed out that the question of solitary post does not arise in this case because appointment is being made against 2 posts. 15. I have considered the pleadings of the petitioner, the documents made available by the learned Advocate General and the contentions raised by both sides. 16. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Industrial Tribunal at Idukki as well as each of the other Industrial Tribunals in the State are to be treated as a single unit and hence rules of reservation cannot be applied in the appointments, it is therefore necessary to examine whether the Industrial Tribunal, at Idukki, should be treated as a solitary post for appointment. 17. 17. The Industrial Tribunals are constituted under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows: "7-A. Tribunals.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. (2) A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Tribunal unless- (a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or (aa) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; (b) he is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the State Labour Department, having a degree in law and at least seven years' experience in the labour department including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer: Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or Joint Labour Commissioner shall be appointed unless he resigns from the service of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, before being appointed as the presiding officer; or (c) he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the grade. (4) The appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons as assessors to advise the Tribunal in the proceeding before it." Section 7A does not provide for the procedure to be adopted for selection or appointment. There are no other rules also relating to the procedure to be followed. 18. It is seen that there was no notification inviting applications for selection or appointment. The process of selection commenced with Ext P1 letter calling for panel of lawyers. The selection is made only on the basis of the panels furnished by the Advocate General and the Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals and Labour courts, as evident from Ext.P1 letter. Going by the qualification prescribed in Ext P1, in tune with Section 7A of the ID Act, the applicant should be an Advocate, with qualifications required of a Judge of High Court. Going by the qualification prescribed in Ext P1, in tune with Section 7A of the ID Act, the applicant should be an Advocate, with qualifications required of a Judge of High Court. The panel called for was for selection to the post of Industrial Tribunal at Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram. It is true that Ext P1 does not indicate that rules of reservation would or would not apply. However, in Ext.P2 letter, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, while directing the candidates to appear for the interview, directed that those eligible for communal reservation shall produce necessary certificates in proof of the same, along with other testimonials required in proof of their qualification, identity, experience, etc as mentioned therein. It was thereafter that the select list was published on 09.01.2017 on the basis of the decision of the selection committee on 31.12.2016. 19. From the minutes of the selection committee, made available for perusal, by learned Advocate General, it is seen that the selection committee, which met on 18.11.2016, took the decision to conduct the interview from 8.12.2016 onwards. It was also decided that communal reservation as envisaged in Rules 14 to 17 of KS&SSR would be strictly observed and to issue necessary instructions to candidates to submit necessary certificates at the time of interview to prove their eligibility for communal reservation. The panel of lawyers are seen invited on the same day 18.11.2016. Thereafter in the call letters for interview, those included in the panel for selection were asked to produce all testimonials including the documents to prove eligibility for communal reservation. Therefore all those who were considered for selection were given the opportunity to prove their eligibility for communal reservation. The select list Ext P3 prepared by the selection committee on 31.12.2016, was published on 09.01.2017. Thereafter the matter was placed before the cabinet. It is seen that cabinet has after taking note of the fact that the rules of communal reservation were not observed in any of the previous appointments of the Industrial Tribunals and the decision of the selection committee, decided to appoint rank no 1 as Industrial Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram and rank no.3, the 3rd respondent as Industrial Tribunal at Idukki in the turn of open merit and reservation for Ezhava, respectively. The decision is seen approved on 1.3.2017. 20. The decision is seen approved on 1.3.2017. 20. From these proceedings it is seen that the entire selection process is made to both the posts simultaneously. Therefore it is a case where there is plurality of posts, where reservation is permissible, even as per the constitution bench judgments in Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Faculty Association and others, (1998) 4 SCC 1 . Paragraph 35 of the judgment is relevant which read as follows: "35. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. The device of rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to such post is kept out of bounds to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled only by open competition amongst all segments of the society." Therefore, there is no question of cent percent reservation in this case. In the judgments considered by the apex court, the posts concerned were of different discipline or department, though in the same cadre. In this case no such distinction is available. In the judgments in State of Uttar Pradesh & others v. Marathon Singh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 120 , the question considered was with respect to the appointments to the posts of Principals in various aided non-government Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges which were not transferable except with mutual consent of the managements and the Principals. The employer of each of the Principals were the managements concerned. In this case all the Tribunals are constituted by Government. In Disapproving case, the question considered was with respect to appointment of Lecturer in History which is not transferable or interchangeable with Lecturers in other disciplines. 21. The employer of each of the Principals were the managements concerned. In this case all the Tribunals are constituted by Government. In Disapproving case, the question considered was with respect to appointment of Lecturer in History which is not transferable or interchangeable with Lecturers in other disciplines. 21. Therefore, as pointed by the learned Advocate General the judgment in Arati Ray Proudhon's v. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 87 , applies in the circumstances of this case. There the constitution bench was considering the applicability of reservation by carry forward in appointment of Head mistresses in Schools run by Railways and held that when there were 2 vacancies under the same management rules of reservation applies. This position was followed in Govindappa's case (supra) also, where it was held as follows: 22. While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions "cadre", "post" and "service" cannot be equated with each other, at the same time the submission that single and isolated posts in respect of different disciplines cannot exist as a separate cadre cannot be accepted. In order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts. Since there is no scope of interchangeability of posts in the different disciplines, each single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. In the absence of duality of posts, if the rule of reservation is to be applied, it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied) 22. The fact that communal reservation was not followed hitherto, cannot be stand in the way of following communal reservation. Similarly the absence of special Rules governing the Industrial Tribunals or inapplicability of KS&SSR to the posts in question, will not prevent the Government or the selection committee in adopting the principles of reservation as envisaged in Rules 14 to 17 of the KS&SSR. A conscious decision is seen taken by the selection committee in this case to follow 23. Therefore the fact that there is no notification published in the gazette regarding the applicability of communal reservation before the commencement of selection will not vitiate the process of selection. A conscious decision is seen taken by the selection committee in this case to follow 23. Therefore the fact that there is no notification published in the gazette regarding the applicability of communal reservation before the commencement of selection will not vitiate the process of selection. The selection is made only from the panel of lawyers and all those included in the panel are given opportunity to claim their eligibility for communal reservation. Moreover reservation is to be granted only at the time of appointment, as envisaged in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Therefore the contention of Sri. P. Ramakrishnan that rules of communal reservation is applied in violation of Rule 14 of KS&SSR cannot be accepted. 24. Therefore though it is true, as rightly contended by Sri. Ramakrishnan, it is settled law that there cannot be any reservation to solitary posts and that reservation to such posts would amount to cent percent reservation in violation of the constitutional provisions, in this case, the entire proceedings for selection are seen to have been made to both the posts of Industrial Tribunal at Idukki and Thiruvananthapuram simultaneously right from the stage of calling for the panel of lawyers as per Ext P1. Except for the fact that each of the Tribunal has separate Head quarters and there is difference in territorial jurisdiction for the respective posts, both the posts are having all the common characteristics. There is no difference in the method of appointment, qualifications or duties to be discharged. Though there is no routine transfers, it is an admitted fact that transfers are given on the requests of incumbents on special orders and the vacancy at Idukki itself arose on transfer of the incumbent to Trissur. 25. When there is no provision of law which prescribes the procedure for selection, nothing stands in the way of the govt. or the selection committee in taking a decision to observe the rules of reservation well in advance. The purpose of issuing notification in the gazette, envisaged in Rule 14 of KS&SSR is to ensure transparency in selection and to afford opportunity to maximum number of candidates eligible for communal reservation to participate in the process of selection. or the selection committee in taking a decision to observe the rules of reservation well in advance. The purpose of issuing notification in the gazette, envisaged in Rule 14 of KS&SSR is to ensure transparency in selection and to afford opportunity to maximum number of candidates eligible for communal reservation to participate in the process of selection. As the selection committee took the decision well before interview and afforded opportunity to all the candidates in the panel for selection, to produce the certificates to prove their eligibility for communal reservation, there is no infirmity in the process of selection. Rules of reservation are to be applied only at the time of appointment. As long as the method adopted is not unconstitutional, contention raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. The judgment in Suresh Chandra Verma's case (supra) will not apply to the factual circumstance arising in the case. 26. The fact that rules of reservation were not observed in the appointments made so far, cannot stand in the way of applying those rules in the appointment of Tribunals when appointments are made against the posts of the 2 Industrial Tribunals simultaneously, especially when transfers were made at least when there was request for the same from the Tribunals. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Ramakrishnan are all in respect of cases where there are solitary posts in different disciplines, which are not interchangeable. In this case it is seen that selection was made against two vacant posts of industrial tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no plurality of posts, even though there are no special rules or provisions of the Constitution of India which govern the appointment of industrial tribunal, as contended by Sri P. Ramakrishnan. 27. The next contention to be examined is whether it is necessary to verify the character and antecedents of the candidates selected for appointment to judicial posts, before the appointment itself or is it sufficient that the character and antecedents are verified after appointment as in the case of the government employees. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose : (2009) 7 SCC 1 , Sri. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose : (2009) 7 SCC 1 , Sri. P. Ramakrishnan asserted the requirement of Government to ensure that the candidate being appointed to a judicial post is having all the qualities as held in the judgment in Kannadasan's case (supra). The Apex Court was considering the issue regarding the appointment of Sri. Kannadasan, who was an additional Judge of the Madras High Court, who was not found fit for appointment as permanent Judge, as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the basis of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the State Commission shall consist of a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President. As per the Proviso to that Section, the appointment shall be made after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides for appointment of members from amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing and having adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. Following the dicta laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441 , the apex court reiterated the need for an independent and impartial judiciary manned by persons of sterling quality and character, undaunting courage and determination and resolute, impartiality and independence who would dispense justice without fear or favour, ill will or affection. It was held that justice without fear or favour, ill will or affection, is the cardinal creed of our Constitution and a solemn assurance of every Judge to the people of this great country. It was held that a person found to be lacking these qualities would not be recommended for appointment of a Permanent Judge. It was held that when Sri. Kannadasan was found disqualified to hold the post of a Judge, it was the constitutional duty of the Chief Justice not to recommend his name. The observations in paragraph 48, 49, 50 and 54 are also relevant, which read as follows: "48. It was held that when Sri. Kannadasan was found disqualified to hold the post of a Judge, it was the constitutional duty of the Chief Justice not to recommend his name. The observations in paragraph 48, 49, 50 and 54 are also relevant, which read as follows: "48. xxxx Judiciary holds a central stage in promoting and strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law. People's faith is the very foundation of any judiciary. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and therefore the People's faith in the judiciary cannot be afforded to be eroded. 49. Independence of judiciary is a much wider concept. Keynote is judiciary and not the Judge. If a person does not have qualification for continuing to hold the office of the Judge of a High Court, it is difficult to conceive as to how despite such deficiency in qualification, he could be recommended for appointment to a statutory post, the eligibility criteria wherefor is, inter alia, a former Judge. 50. A Chief Justice of a High Court, thus, before making recommendations for his appointment in terms of Section 16 of the Act must satisfy himself that the recommendee has/had those basic qualities. While making recommendations the Chief Justice performs a constitutional duty. If while discharging his duty, he finds a former Judge to be ineligible, the question of his being considered for appointment would not arise. If such a person cannot be recommended being unfit or ineligible to hold the post, it would not be correct to contend that despite the same he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Whether the condition "has been a Judge" is not necessary to be construed for the purpose of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, it is required for the purpose of interpreting Section 16 of the Act as to whether he should be recommended for being appointed as a Chairman of the State Commission. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 54. xxx Public information about independence and impartiality of the judiciary would be in question. The duty of all organs of the State is that the public trust and confidence in the judiciary may not go in vain. Construction of a statute would not necessarily depend upon application of any known formalism. It must be done having regard to the text and context thereof. The duty of all organs of the State is that the public trust and confidence in the judiciary may not go in vain. Construction of a statute would not necessarily depend upon application of any known formalism. It must be done having regard to the text and context thereof. For the aforementioned purpose, it is necessary to take into consideration the statutory scheme and the purpose and object it seeks to achieve." 28. The contention is that the parameters laid down by the apex court in Kannadasan's case (supra) are equally applicable to the appointment of Industrial Tribunal also and the appointment should be made after assessing all these qualities before appointment, as held therein and not subsequent to the appointment, since the appointment is to a statutory judicial post which demands public trust and confidence and not one like that of government employee without any judicial duties, in the State and Subordinate Service. 29. I am also of the considered view that these qualities are to be assessed before appointment itself as contended by Shri Ramakrishnan, as far as judicial posts are concerned. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that character and antecedents need be verified only after the appointment is made. Therefore according to me it is not a case where Govt. can invoke a procedure akin to the proviso to Rule 10(b)(iii), to postpone the verification of character and antecedents. When appointment is to a post which requires the qualification required as of the Judge of a High Court, the verification should also be in tune with the requirements laid down in Kannadasan's case (supra). Now it is stated that the petitioner has got discharged from the criminal case pointed out by the petitioner. The fact that he was an office bearer of a political party cannot be a disqualification, if he fulfils all other criteria for holding a judicial post. It is for the Govt. to ensure that 3rd respondent fulfils all the requirements for holding a judicial post as held in Kannadasan's case (supra), before appointment itself. At any rate, the appointment is yet to be made. The materials which are available on record are not sufficient to stall the appointment of 3rd respondent at this stage. 30. It is for the Govt. to ensure that 3rd respondent fulfils all the requirements for holding a judicial post as held in Kannadasan's case (supra), before appointment itself. At any rate, the appointment is yet to be made. The materials which are available on record are not sufficient to stall the appointment of 3rd respondent at this stage. 30. Moreover since it is decided that principles of reservation are to be applied, the petitioner will not be benefited if at all the appointment of the 3rd respondent is found illegal, on that ground when there are other candidates in the merit list, belonging to OBC/Ezhava. As pointed out by Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has not challenged the ranked list. There is no allegation against the selection committee. The members of the selection committee are not impleaded. 31. In view of the aforesaid judgments in respect of reservation and also in view of the fact that panel was called for appointment against 2 Industrial Tribunals simultaneously, it cannot be said that there is no plurality of post so as to exclude the observance of rules of reservation. The petitioner will be free to raise the contentions as to the unsuitability of the 3rd respondent, if necessary at a later stage. 32. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.