IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the authority of respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application based on legal advice regarding panel validity.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner holds Post Graduation in Psychology and has 10 months experience in Child Welfare Activities working in Child Development Project Office. The writ petition has been filed seeking to dismiss respondents 3 to 5 immediately and to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy. The petitioner states that he had worked in Integrated Child Development Project for a period of 10 years and has gathered experience in evaluating and analysing behaviour of children. The petitioner has 27 years experience in the Social Justice Department/Women and Child Care Department. He has Post Graduate Diploma in Counselling Psychology as also in Life Skill Education. The petitioner claims institutional experience working at “Sarvathrika Sahodarya Samithi”. He has also worked in “Ashraya Charitable Society”. He was a Counsellor of Students for three years.

2. The petitioner states that the Chairperson and Members of a Child Welfare Committee shall have qualifications specified in Section 27(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act and Rule 15(3) of the Model Rules. The petitioner responded to Notification dated 26.11.2021 for selection to the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam District. After conducting an interview, the Selection Committee submitted Ext.P4 panel in which there were five candidates in the main list. The petitioner was ranked as first in the waiting list. By Ext.P5, Child Welfare Committee was constituted in Kollam District appointing five persons from the main list.

3. Ext.P5 is the appointment order. From among the five members, Smt. Aswathy Viswan was terminated from the Child Welfare Committee consequent to disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner applied for the said vacancy as he was first in the waiting list.

4. The 3^rd respondent intentionally rejected the petitioner's application. The petitioner again submitted another application. The 3^rd respondent sent the file to the Law Department. The Law Department obtained legal opinion. The Law Department opined that the Model Rules will apply to the State till the State frames Rules for the purpose. The petitioner submits that respondents 3 to 5 committed misconduct and malpractice and acted dishonestly.

5. The petitioner states that in W.A. No.1737/2024, a Division Bench, as per judgment dated 18.02.2025, directed to appoint the petitioner within one week. The order of the Division Bench has not been implemented till date. The respondents are therefore compellable to appoint the petitioner against the vacancy of Aswathy Viswan, contended the petitioner.

6. The petitioner, who appeared in person, argued that when Aswathy Viswan was terminated, the petitioner who was first in the waiting list ought to have been appointed as he was fully eligible to be appointed as per the 2017 Kerala Rules. Respondents 3 to 5 deliberately quoted the Model Rules, 2016 in order to reject the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner's application was rejected since respondents 3 to 5 put up notes quoting the Model Rules which were not in force. Respondents 3 to 5 are therefore liable to be dismissed.

7. The 1^st respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 1^st respondent stated that appointment of CWC members is made from the panel list prepared by the Selection Committee. The Kerala Rules are silent on the validity of the panel. Therefore, the validity should be governed by Rule 88 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016. As per the Rules, 2016, the panel will be valid for one year, extendable by six months if a new panel has not been constituted. The petitioner could not have been appointed since the validity of the panel had expired.

8. The petitione