Point of Law: It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to an extent in a quo warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposter coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a constitutional court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant Public Interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ of quo warranto directing respondents 3 and 4, viz., Ajay Kumar, Geologist, Office of the Director of Mining and Geology, Department of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram; and Bijumon, Geologist, Office of the Geologist, Kottayam, to show under what authority they have been functioning as Geologist in the Department of Mining and Geology, State of Kerala;

(ii) Declare that respondents 3 and 4 are liable to be discharged under Rule 19(b)(ii) of Part II of KS & SSR for want of test qualification;

(iii) Declare that the orders issued by respondents 3 and 4, while functioning as Geologists, are nonest in the eye of law and that they are not liable to be acted upon.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are, petitioner is the Honorary Secretary of Idukki District Tourism Promotion Co-operative Society Ltd., No.1-631, a society formed to promote tourism in Idukki district. He is also the former State Secretary of Kerala NGO Front, an organization of Non-Gazetted employees of the State Government. He has taken up various causes against illegal quarrying in the State, as also against the unscrupulous officers of the mining and geology department, who according to the petitioner, have been instrumental in issuance of illegal mining permits.

3. Petitioner has further stated that the post of Geologist is governed by the Kerala Geology Service Rules, 2009, published as per SRO No.647/2009 dated 20.07.2009. According to the petitioner, as per the said rules, the post of Geologist is to be filled up by promotion from among Assistant Geologist and in the absence of suitable candidates for transfer by direct recruitment.

4. Petitioner has further stated that the 3rd respondent is presently working as Geologist, in the office of the 2nd respondent, viz., the Director of Mining and Geology, Department of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram. According to him, respondent No.3 had commenced service as Assistant Geologist on 11.07.2003 and was promoted and posted as Geologist as per Government Order dated 22.09.2016 (Exhibit-P2).

5. Petitioner has further stated that 4th respondent is also presently working as Geologist in District Office, Kottayam. Respondent No.4 had commenced service as Assistant Geologist on 13.08.2003 and was promoted as Geologist as per Government Order dated 20.02.2020 (Exhibit-P3) and posted at District Office, Kozhikode. The predominant contention advanced is that, as per Exhibit-P1 rules, respondents 3 and 4 have to pass Account Test (Lower) or (Higher), within a period of one year on duty, within a continuous period of two years from their date of appointment as Geologist, if they have not already passed the test. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 did not possess the said qualification whey they were appointed as Geologists as per Exhibits-P2 and P3 Government orders.

6. Petitioner has further stated that respondents 3 and 4 ought to have passed Account Test (Lower) or (Higher) on or before 22.09.2017 and 20.02.2021 respectively. However, they have not passed either of the tests even now and that their probation period has not been extended under Rule 21. Hence, petitioner contended that they are liable to be discharged in terms of Rule 19(b)1 of Part II KS & SSR.

7. Petitioner has further stated that while continuing as Geologist, the respondents 3 and 4 had issued a number of sanction orders, lease recommendations and approval of mining plans. In support of the same, petitioner has produced Exhibits-P8 to P22. That apart, the 4th respondent has also approved similar mining plans while working as Geologist at Kozhikode and Kottayam. According to the petitioner, the said plans were approved after acceptance of illegal gratification. Petitioner, in fact, submitted Exh