Fasna K.K vs Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayath, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam 683 105, Rep By President

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.

The appellant is challenging the dismissal of the writ petition preferred by him questioning the appointment of the 4th respondent pursuant to the selection process initiated by the Panchayat to the post of Technical Assistant as per Exts.P2 and P3 notification. The writ petitioner contended that he was fully qualified for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant in the first respondent Panchayat for which notification was invited as per Exts.P2 and P3. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent had applied. The petitioner's complaint is that the experience certificate which the 4th respondent ought to have produced along with his application before the last date was not produced and the same was produced only later and this according to the writ petitioner was fatal as production of experience certificate was an essential condition and in the absence of the same, the appointment of the 4th respondent is bad and resultanly the writ petitioner, the appellant ought to have been appointed.

The learned single Judge, who considered the matter and perusing the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 found that Ext.P2 notification which provided for educational qualification for appointment had also specified that the qualified candidates must also have the eligibility and experience to do DTP works in English and Malayalam and should be between the age of 18 and 35. Ext.P2 stipulates that they should appear for the interview to be conducted on 15.7.2021 with certificate showing their qualification and experience. The learned single Judge took note of the contention of the Panchayat that all that was required was the eligibility and experience to carry out DTP works and the same had been assessed by the Selection Committee in which both the petitioner and the 4th respondent participated and it is only because the 4th respondent got 100 marks out of 140 while the writ petitioner obtained only 98 marks out of 140 that the 4th respondent was selected. The experience of the 4th respondent working at different establishments since 2018 was also taken note of. It was not a case where the petitioner was found to be disqualified, but the 4th respondent was selected because of the better marks obtained in the selection process.

The learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Praveen K.Joy submits on the basis of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and ors. (MANU/KE/1285/2009) that the Selection Committee was bound to scrupulously follow the norms mentioned in Ext.P2 and that they have no power to relax any norm.

He submits that in the instant case the Selection Committee varied the qualifications fixed in Ext.P2 and thus the entire selection process is bad. The judgement cited pertained to the powers of the Selection Committee arising in the context of selection to the post of Controller of Examinations in the Kerala University in terms of the provisions of the Kerala University First Statute, 1997 and has nothing to do with the selection of the kind done by the Panchayat in the instant case. We could not discover anything in the said judgment in support of the appellant in this case. That apart we are of the view that the requirement of producing an experience certificate was not an essential one, the non-compliance with which would disqualify a candidate. This is more so because evidently, even the employer did not treat it as a mandatory requirement.

We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. We affirm the same holding that there is no merit in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.