TOMY PHILIP Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard all the learned counsel; Mr. Benoy Thomas for the petitioners, and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. M. R. Rajendran Nair, Mr. P. Sukumaran Nayar, Mr. P. Kesavan Nair, Mr. K. G. Cleetus, Mr. N. Govindan Nair, Mr. K. Unnikrishna Kurup, Mr. P. Parameswaran Nair and Mr. P. Thomas Joseph for respondents.

(2.) These two petitions have been placed for final hearing before us pursuant to the reference order, dated 20th July, 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge. Petitions are filed by candidates who failed to get appointment as Junior Telecom Officers despite their claim that they have satisfied the qualifications prescribed in the notification, Ext. P2, issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Kerala Telecommunication Circle. In O. P. No. 7508/90 there are three petitioners. Originally, there were only two respondents. The first respondent is the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Kerala Circle and the second respondent is one of the persons appointed as Junior Telecom Officer pursuant to the said notification, Ext. P2. The remaining respondents are those who have been appointed subsequently and, hence, were added as such. In O. P. No. 4945/91 there is only one petitioner, Biji Jacob and one respondent, viz. Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Kerala Circle. By consent of all the learned counsel, these two petitions were heard together and are being deposed of by this common Judgment.

(3.) The common grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that persons who are less qualified than the petitioners are selected and appointed. Hence, the first relief sought for is to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the illegal and arbitrary selection / appointment made by the first respondent to the post of Junior Telecom Officers pursuant to Ext. P2. The second relief is for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to fill up all the vacancies of the posts of Junior Telecom Officers under the first respondent's jurisdiction after duly publishing the select / rank list of candidates, ranked according to the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in Engineering Degree Examination, etc. Another relief prayed for is for a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the selection of those candidates to the post of Junior Telecom Officers pursuant to Ext. P2, who have secured lesser marks than the petitioners in Part III of B.Sc. Examination. Further relief prayed for is for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel the selection of those candidates who have secured lesser marks than the petitioners in Part III of B.Sc. Examinations to the post of Junior Telecom Officers under the first respondent made pursuant to Ext. P2 and to appoint the petitioners in their place. These reliefs are to be found in prayers (a) to (g) in O. P. No. 7508 of 1990. In O. P. No. 4945 of 1991, similar reliefs have been prayed for. It is not necessary to reproduce the prayers because, in our view, the reliefs prayed for are identical. In O. P. No. 7508 of 1990, persons who have actually been selected and appointed as Junior Telecom Officers have been joined as respondents 2 to 12.