IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25276 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

NAVAS P.

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ABDU RAHMAN, PUTHIYOTH HOUSE, VAZHAYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI. K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 033.

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505.

4 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.

5 THE MEDICAL OFFICER FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -

673 640.

6 VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 640.

7 THE PRESIDENT VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 640.

BY ADVS. SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL, STANDING COUNSEL FOR PANCHAYATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2022 The petitioner, a qualified medical graduate, had applied for appointment to the post of Doctor in the Vazhakkad Health Centre, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 25.10.2021. The interview for appointment to the notified post was conducted on 02.11.2021. According to the petitioner he has secured the first position, as is discernible from Ext.P2 information received under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of the Panchayath to appoint him and attempt to conduct fresh interview for the post of Doctor at Vazhakkad Health Centre.

2. The Panchayath’s stand, as reflected from their counter afÏdavit, is that the Committee decided not to proceed with the process of appointment based on the interview conducted on 02.11.2021, since the result of that interview had leaked, before the rank list was placed for consideration of the Panchayath Committee. The Committee therefore decided to conduct a fresh interview as evidenced by Ext.R6(b).

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contented that the Panchayath is adopting surreptitious methods for denying appointment to the petitioner, so as to appoint a person of their choice. To that end, a fake story that the marks of the interview was leaked before it was placed in the Panchayath Committee is put forth. It is contented that, merit being the primary consideration for public appointment, the Panchayath is bound to appoint the petitioner, he having secured the maximum marks in the interview.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath submitted that, securing of maximum marks in the interview, by itself, will not vest the petitioner with any legal right to claim appointment. It is for the Panchayath to decide as to the person most suited for the notified post, based on the marks and other relevant factors. The marks of the interview having leaked before the Committee taking its decision, the sanctity of the whole process was lost.

5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that interview was conducted and rank list prepared following due procedure.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find substantial merit in the contention that having conducted interview following due procedure, the mere fact that the marks of the interview was made available in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, should not be to the prejudice of the person, who secured the maximum marks. Even if the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath that the list will be finalised only after taking into account other relevant factors also is acc