IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Nitha.A.B., W/o Arun - Appellant
Versus
Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board - Respondents
WP(C) No. 25049 of 2024
Decided on : 13-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P4 notification dated 11.10.2023 issued by the 1st respondent Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, for the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 select list dated 02.07.2024 published by the 1st respondent Recruitment Board. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to conduct interview of the candidates afresh, in the presence of an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this Court.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner applied for the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3rd respondent Devaswom Board. The 1st respondent Recruitment Board conducted a written test and interview on 18.02.2024 and 27.06.2024, respectively. The petitioner acquired the highest mark in the written test. But in order to avoid ladies coming to the said post, the interview board has given the least mark to the petitioner. None of the academic credentials or previous experiences of the petitioner were considered. Even though the petitioner answered all the questions asked in the interview, the interview board purposefully granted the least mark to her solely for avoiding a lady being placed in the top rank.
3. On 12.07.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge, it was submitted that identical cases are posted before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters. Therefore, by the order dated 12.07.2024, this writ petition was directed to be listed before the Division Bench, after obtaining the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary orders, the writ petition is listed before the Division Bench on 18.07.2024.
4. On 19.07.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to amend the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 seeking various interim reliefs. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 were filed on 18.07.2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 was filed on 20.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2024 on 20.07.2024 seeking an order to amend the writ petition, as stated in that interlocutory application. By the order dated 29.07.2024, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 were closed and I.A.No.3 of 2024 was dismissed as not pressed. I.A.No.4 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to implead the candidates, who are included in Ext.P7 select list, as additional respondents 4 to 14, and to amend the writ petition as stated in that interlocutory application, was allowed. The learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom Recruitment Board took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board for the 3rd respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to additional respondents 4 to 14.
5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated23.08.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(h) documents. Paragraphs6 to 9 of that counter affidavit read thus;
“6. It is submitted that this respondent is having vast experience in public relations. The 4th respondent has worked as a Journalist as Reporter/Sub Editor in Mathrubhumi News Channel and as a Sub Editor in the Information Public Relations Department, Government of Kerala. A true copy of the Certificate of Experience dated 8.12.2022 issued by the Manager-HR & Administration, Mathrubhumi News Channel to the 4th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(c). The 4th respondent has also worked as a Sub Editor in the Information Public Relations Department for the period from 1.2.2022 to 31.1.2023 and from 21.3.2023 to 20.1.2024. A true copy of the Certificate of Experience dated 20.1.2024 issued by the Information Officer, Information Public Relations
Judicial review of selection processes is limited; courts cannot reassess candidates' merits unless there is proven bias or violation of statutory rules.
The select list remains valid for all reported vacancies until duties prescribed by law are fulfilled, despite initial notifications stating otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining the rank list and seniority for selected candidates, as governed by Regulation 97 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board....
The legitimacy of employment selections cannot be challenged solely based on familial relationships unless sinister motives or procedural violations are demonstrated.
Recruitment criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins, as it violates principles of fairness and predictability under public service law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.