IMPORTANT POINTS
Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 which deals with maintainability of complaints before the Commission. Regulation 17 states that, the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the nature enumerated in clauses (a) to (l). Clause (f) of Regulation 17 provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine, complaints wherein the issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute. Clause (i) of Regulation 17 provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints, if the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission. Similarly, going by clause (l), the Commission may dismiss the complaints in limine, where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground.

Narayana Pisharadi, J

Challenge in this writ petition filed by M/s Malabar Cements Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is directed against Ext.P8 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (for short 'the Commission') directing the company to appoint the first respondent as Mazdoor in the company.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

The company conducted selection for appointment to the post of Mazdoor. The first respondent, who was an applicant to the post, failed in the physical fitness test conducted by the company and therefore, he was not selected for appointment. The first respondent had filed W.P.(C) No. 8125/2005 before this Court challenging the selection process. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 07.02.2008, directing the company to consider the first respondent also to the post of Mazdoor as and when vacancy arises, provided he made application pursuant to the notification issued in that behalf and subject to his possession of qualification and eligibility.

3. Meanwhile, as per the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2074/2007, a vigilance enquiry was conducted regarding the corrupt practices allegedly took place in the appointments made in the company. The first respondent submitted Ext.P3(2) representation dated 02.08.2012 to the Government praying that steps may be taken to give direction to the company to appoint him as Mazdoor. Such a representation was made by him on the basis that, in the physical fitness test conducted during the vigilance enquiry, he was found qualified. The Government forwarded the aforesaid representation to the company seeking a report. The company sent Ext.P4 reply to the Government pointing out Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in the matter. The company sent a further reply as Ext.P5 to the Government enclosing therewith a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors to the effect that the first respondent was not qualified for appointment as Mazdoor.

4. The first respondent filed Ext.P6 petition dated 11.09.2014 before the Commission praying that steps may be taken for giving him appointment as Mazdoor in the company. It appears that the Commission sought a report from the company on his petition and the company sent Ext.P7 reply to the Commission referring to Ext.P1 judgment of this Court and also informing the Commission regarding the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the matter. As per Ext.P8 order dated 04.08.2015, the Commission directed the company to reconsider its decision and to appoint the first respondent as Mazdoor. The aforesaid order is challenged in this writ petition.

5. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition. The emphasis in the counter affidavit is with respect to the corrupt practices that took place in the appointments made in the company and also with regard to his success in the physical fitness test which was conducted by the vigilance officials during the enquiry.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

7. The first respondent had challenged the selection process to the post of Mazdoor in W.P.(C) No.8125/2005 filed by him. Ext.P1 is the copy of the judgment in that writ petition. It is a short judgment and it is extracted below in its entirety.

“Having heard the counsel on both sides and having perused the averments in the writ petition, the only direction that could be passed, at this stage, is one to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner to be posted as Mazdoor as and when there is a notification in future.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner also to the post of Mazdoor as and when the vacancy arises, provided he applies pursuant to the notification issued in that behalf subject to his possession of qualification and eligibility, as early as possible.”

8. Admitt