The court emphasizes the importance of fair selection processes under constitutional norms in public employment.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2025 The petitioner is a permanent employee of the 1^st respondent-Corporation joined service in the year 1999 and rendered more than two decades of continuous and unblemished service as a factory worker in the TSR Factory, Athirappilly Estate.

2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to selection to the post of Pump Operator, pursuant to Ext P1 notification. As per Ext.P1 notification, applications from eligible internal candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications and experience were invited for appointment to the post of Pump Operator. The petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible as per the terms of the notification, submitted his application within the prescribed time through proper channel. The application was duly forwarded by the competent authority and was received by the 2^nd respondent. Despite receipt of a large number of applications pursuant to the notification, the respondents failed to publish any shortlist, selection criteria or rejection orders.

3. The petitioner states that while around 33 applications were received, call letters for interview / written examination were issued only to a few chosen candidates, excluding several eligible applicants including the petitioner, without any notice, intimation, or reasoned order. The petitioner was neither informed of any rejection nor afforded an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Such selective calling of candidates, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India , contends the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by his exclusion, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting consideration of his candidature if the selection process is conducted in future.

Despite receipt of the said representation, no action has been taken by the respondents till date. The respondents are now proceeding with the selection process without rectifying the illegality committed at the stage of scrutiny, which, if permitted to continue, would cause irreparable injury and grave prejudice, contends the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. Standing Counsel submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner has been found to be defective as the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner was not as per format. If that be so, whether the petitioner, being an internal candidate, can now be permitted to submit a proper Experience Certificate in the prescribed format is a matter that may be considered by the respondents.

7. I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 representation relating to the recruitment. In the facts of the case, it would be sufficient that the 2^nd respondent considers Ext.P2 and takes appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation and take appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, before the conclusion of the selection proceedings.