Kerala High Court · 2024

HASEENA.A AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SANIJ.M.A., MANAKULANAGARAPARAMBIL, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THAZHEKAD.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NIHAL MANZIL, NETTATHUKULAMBU, VANOOR, ALATHUR.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678541. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THE KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE PEECHI,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680653, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR-680653. SRI.SAIGY JACOB PALATTY, SR.GP SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.T.R.VISHNU SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO.826 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of January, 2024 Anu Sivaraman, J. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge inasmuch as it directed the appointment of the 1st respondent herein as Scientist B in the service of the 3rd respondent which is a constituent of the appellant-Council.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the 1st respondent had filed a writ petition seeking directions to respondents 3 and 4 to issue appointment order appointing the petitioner as Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology. It was the contention of the 1st respondent as the writ petitioner that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, she alone had participated in the interview conducted for appointment to WA NO.826 OF 2021 3 the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology. It was contended that she was placed as Rank No.1 in the ranked list of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology and has been denied appointment only due to the fact that she did not have PhD in the concerned subject.

4. The writ petition was considered along with some other writ petitions which were filed challenging the notification and others seeking appointment of the selected persons. The learned single Judge had considered the writ petitions together and had rendered a common judgment in the batch of writ petitions. The argument of the petitioner that she was found unsuitable in the interview only because she appeared in the interview on the strength of the interim order was accepted and the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment afresh, in accordance with law.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, it was specifically stated that the petitioner was admitted for the WA NO.826 OF 2021 4 interview process as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C). No.6461/2016, even though the post was reserved for OBC other than Ezhava as per the notification. It was admitted that only the petitioner had turned up for the interview for the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology. However, it was specifically averred in the counter affidavit that the contention of the petitioner that she performed well in the interview and was selected as Rank No.1 to the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology is not true. It was stated that the selection committee did not find her suitable for appointment to the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology and a copy of the proceedings were also produced and marked as Ext.R3(a).

6. A perusal of Ext.R3(a) produced along with the counter affidavit would show that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner had been granted only 28.3 marks out of an aggregate of 100 marks with the Chairman giving her 7 marks out of 20, the Subject Expert giving her 12 marks out of 50 and the other 5 members of the Committee giving her 2.5, 2, 3, 4 and 4 marks out of 10 each. The average marks given by the members which has been reduced to 30 marks was 9.3. The Interview WA NO.826 OF 2021 5 Committee had specifically recorded that the candidate is not found suitable.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no ranked list published at the relevant time and since the 1st respondent who was the only person who attended the interview for the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology was found to be not suitable, the post was also not filled up pursuant to the notification.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that it was on account of the fact that the post stood reserved for OBC other than Ezhava in the notification that the petitioner’s claim was not considered. After the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.6461/2016, the 1st respondent was permitted to attend the interview. It is submitted that Forest Biotechnology is a rare subject and she was fully qualified for appointment. It is further contended that the learned single Judge has specifically considered the issue and has found that it was because the 1st respondent had attended the interview on the basis of orders granted by this Court that she was found to be not suitable in the interview. It is submitted that it is in the WA NO.826 OF 2021 6 above circumstances that the directions had been issued by the learned single Judge directing the appointment of the petitioner.

9. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that Ext.P4 notification specifically provided that the qualification for the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology is a First Class MSc in Biotechnology or any branch of life science; PhD in any one of the above subjects. PhD in a field of Biotechnology with special relevance to forestry was a desirable qualification. The notification would also clearly show that there was an interview contemplated in the selection process. It appears that out of the 100 marks provided as aggregate in the selection process, 30 marks were earmarked for the interview. It appears that the petitioner was given only an aggregate of 9.3 marks in the interview and was specifically not found suitable in the interview. The total marks obtained by her was also, admittedly, only 28.3 out of 100 marks.

10. The pleadings in the writ petition were to the effect that the writ petitioner/1st respondent had applied for appointment to the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology, Forest Protection, Genetics and WA NO.826 OF 2021 7 Tree Breading. It was contended that the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology was not filled up even though the writ petitioner alone had attended the interview and she was selected as rank No.1 in the post of Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology. The only prayer in the writ petition was therefore for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to issue appointment order appointing the petitioner as Scientist B in Forest Biotechnology.

11. Having considered the contentions advanced and the pleadings and materials on record, we are of the opinion that the finding that the petitioner was not found suitable in the interview only because she had appeared on the strength of directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation was not based on any material. In view of the fact that the 1st respondent was not found suitable in the selection process, we are of the opinion that no directions could have been issued in the writ petition since the specific contentions of the respondents stood uncontroverted. This is more so in view of the fact that the contention of the petitioner that she was ranked No.1 is seen to be incorrect in view of Ext.R3(a) which is the proceedings of the WA NO.826 OF 2021 8 interview which was produced along with the counter affidavit which stood uncontroverted. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this appeal is liable to succeed. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge in so far as it pertains to the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent is set aside. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE NP