Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
JINEESHMON BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15485 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.HARIDAS, SHRI.BIJU HARIHARAN, SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW, SRI.P.C.SHIJIN, SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS, SMT.RAJASREE T.R
For the Respondents: SMT. SONY K.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SHRI.VARGHESE SABU, SRI.K.T.THOMAS, SMT.P.SEENA, SMT.GOURI BALAGOPAL, SHRI.SREELEKSHMI A.S., SHRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH, SHRI.V.JOHN MANI, SHRI.SETHULAKSHMI K.K., SMT.SHAMEENA K.Y., SRI.NIKHIL BERNY, SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL), SRI.E.S.FIROS, SMT.AMRUTHA K.P., SMT.SRADHA MOHAN, SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY, SRI.RAMESH .P, SMT.BLEIMY T.JOSE, SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE
The absence of substantive evidence supporting allegations of malpractice or corruption in a selection process upholds the integrity of the decisions made during that process.
Headnote:(A) Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 - Statute 21, Chapter XXIII - Selection process for Office Attendant - The petitioner challenged the selection claiming undue influence and malpractices; however, allegations of question paper leakage and substitution of answer sheets were unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. (Paras 1-13)
(B) Due process in examinations - The court affirmed that merely sitting candidates in different halls or failure to disclose negative marking does not prejudice candidates, provided that the selection process is transparent and fair. (Paras 10-12) Facts of the Case: The petitioner applied for an Office Attendant position, contesting that the selection process was vitiated due to alleged malpractice by certain respondents who had engaged in corruption.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence supporting the claims of malpractice or irregularities in the selection process. The 8th respondent's authority was deemed valid, and the selection procedure was upheld.
Issues: Determination if the selection process was tainted by corruption, including the unauthorized presence of certain respondents and alleged manipulation of test results.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to prove any substantive violations that would affect the integrity of the selection process, emphasizing that allegations without evidence do not warrant judicial interference.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of selection process for office attendant position. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. overview of response from university regarding selection. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. challenges to examination process must demonstrate prejudice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner, who is an applicant for the post of Office Attendant under the Mahatma Gandhi University, has filed this writ petition seeking to declare that the entire selection pursuant to Ext.P1 is vitiated and invalid.
2. Mahatma Gandhi University invited applications for approved vacancies of one LD Computer Assistant and three Office Attendants as per Ext.P1. Two vacancies of Office Attendants were for general candidates and one vacancy was earmarked for differently-abled. The petitioner states that though the 8th respondent was authorised to act as Drawing and Disbursing Officer upto 06.03.2023, the authorisation was not extended and she does not have the authority to act as Principal or to take part in the selection process.
3. The candidates, who applied in response to Ext.P1, were made to sit in three different examination halls. The questions were of multiple choice. It was not indicated that there will be negative marks for wrong answers. Towards the end of the examination, it was declared that there would not be any negative marks.
4. The petitioner states that respondents 7 and 8 had leaked out the question papers. The 7th respondent visited the examination hall without any authority. During interview also, the 7th respondent was present. The 7th respondent has exercised powers which are not vested in him. The petitioner would further allege that respondents 4 to 6 have made arrangement to substitute answer sheets of certain candidates. Respondents 5 to 8 have committed corruption and malpractice, contends the petitioner.
5. The petitioner submits that even after this Court passed an interim order staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1, respondents 5 to 8 made appointments of respondents 9 to 11. Grades in the interview were given in a pre-planned manner so as to include some candidates in the rank list. The selection proceedings are therefore liable to be set aside.
6. Respondents 5 to 8 resisted the writ petition.
The 8th respondent was appointed by the University as Principal-in-Charge as per Ext.R5(a) order dated 09.07.2021. The term of the 8th respondent was to expire only on 07.06.2023. No other person has been appointed as Principal so far. Therefore, the 8th respondent is still continuing as the Principal-in-Charge.
7. The Principal-in-Charge is authorised to be a member of the selection committee and the governing body of the College. Basic proficiency test was conducted for selection. In the interview, gradings were given to the candidates based on their performance. The petitioner did not qualify. The selected candidates have joined duty and they are drawing salary.
8. The 3rd respondent filed a statement. The 3rd respondent stated that as per Statute 21 Chapter XXIII of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, in the absence of the Principal, the seniormost Professor or in his absence, the next seniormost Professor or Lecturer of the College shall be in charge of the duties of the Principal. The 8th respondent has been serving as the Principal-in-Charge. The University is only a formal party in the writ petition.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 11.
10. The petitioner is challenging selection and appointment to the post of Office Attendant. The contention of the petitioner is that the candidates, who applied for selection and appointment in response to Ext.P1 notification, were made to sit in three different examination halls. If candidates are made to sit in different examination halls for
