Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46489
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
TESSY NINAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/22085/2022
K.RAKESH ROSHAN, THUSHARA.V, SHRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SRI. PETER JOSE CHRISTO A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.), SHILPA SATHISH INDRAJITH S KAIMAL
An invalid EWS certificate renders any appointment under that category null and void, necessitating rectification based on eligibility criteria.
Headnote:
Appointment - Employment - EWS Certification - Nullity - Summary of Court's Interpretation and Decisions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent's appointment was invalid as she did not qualify under the EWS category, and thus her appointment should be annulled to appoint the petitioner, who ranked higher.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the EWS certificate rendered the appointment of the 6th respondent null and void, thus mandating that the vacancy should be filled by the petitioner or another eligible candidate.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the 6th respondent could be considered valid despite the cancellation of her EWS certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appointment under the EWS category must be based on a valid certificate; hence, the appointment becomes void when the certificate is invalidated.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, directing CUSAT to fill the vacancy per the rank list considering the removal of the 6th respondent.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that 6th respondent was illegally appointed by the 5th respondent - Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation, even though she was not entitled to be so considered. She asserts that 6th respondent does not come under the EWS category and consequently that her appointment will have to be treated as being null and void. She thus prays that CUSAT be directed to terminate the services of the 6th respondent and to appoint her to the resultant vacancy, without any further delay, because she is the 2nd Rank holder in the List published for this purpose by them.
2. The afore submissions of Sri.Rakesh Roshan K. - learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.Peter Jose Christo , learned counsel representing Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay – learned Standing Counsel for the CUSAT, saying that his client had acted correctly in accepting the application of the 6th respondent, since she had supported it with a valid Certificate from the competent Authority. He, however, conceded that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of his client today, wherein, Ext.R5(d) has been produced, through which, the jurisdictional Village Officer has withdrawn the said Certificate, saying that 6th respondent had obtained it on incorrect facts. He added that 6th respondent has now resigned from the services of the CUSAT; but that her vacancy cannot be offered to the petitioner, since it will have to be now notified again for being filled up.
3. Sri.A.Sudhi Vasudevan – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Shilpa Sathish – learned counsel for the 6th respondent, submitted that Ext.R5(d) is an egregiously wrong proceedings and that his client intends to challenge the same, for which, he sought liberty. He added that this is more so because, Ext.R5(d) does not take into account the fact that, at the time when it was issued, his client was living separately from her husband, thus being eligible to be considered under the ambit of EWS category. He prayed that, therefore, liberty be reserved to his client to challenge Ext.R5(d), if so found necessary in future; however, unequivocally saying that she is not interested in the employment under the CUSAT and that she has already resigned.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that, even going by the version of the CUSAT, appointment of the 6th respondent will have to be treated as being null and void, since she was admitted under the EWS category, based on a Certificate, which has now been cancelled through Ext.R5(d) by the jurisdictional Village Officer. The question whether Ext.R5(d) is a valid document or otherwise is something which will have to be impelled and proved by the 6th respondent in due course, if she is so interested; but as matters now stand, her appointment can only be construed to be null and void consequent to the issuance of the said proceedings by the Village Officer.
5. I say as afore because the 6th respondent is now clearly without competence or eligibility to have applied for or obtained appointment under the EWS category; and hence her resignation from the services of the CUSAT cannot be merely be treated as such, but will have to be construed as having been terminated consequent to Ext.R5(d).
6. Axiomatically, the vacancy will have to be deemed to have been never filled up validly; and resultantly, it will have to be offered to the next rank holder, which the petitioner says, she is.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, recording the submissions of the CUSAT that 6th respondent is no longer in service and that Ext.R5(d) has been received; thus directing them to consider the petitioner or any other eligible person in the Rank List, as per the position therein, to the vacancy resultant to the removal/resignation of the 6th respondent from service.
That being ordered, however, since there is no other allegation against the 6th respondent by the C
