PRAVEEN G S Vs. ARUN V S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the writ appeals arise from the very same judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 12899/2008 filed by the first respondent in all the writ appeals. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext. P5 order issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board cancelling the remaining list of candidates prepared for appointment to the post of Watchers in the temples. Pursuant to Ext. P1 notification the Devaswom Board conducted written examination from applicants for selection to the post of Watchers in temples. Based on the marks obtained in the written examination a list containing 351 persons were prepared which is produced as Ext. P2 dated 31/10/2005. However, in an enquiry on the allegations of irregularities committed in the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Justice Paripoornan Commission in their report dated 19/12/2007 observed that: "selection to the post of Watchers has been done at the ipse dixit of the Board and its members and there was no compliance with the directions in the notification. We find that the selection of Watchers is improper and illegal." Even though report was given by the Commission only on 19/12/2007, the Board even prior to that apprehended such finding by the Commission and cancelled the list vide Ext. P5 dated 4/ 12/2007. However, from February 2006 onwards the Board has been making appointments from the very same list of selected candidates and when the list was cancelled as many as 70 persons were appointed and on completion of probation, they were confirmed in services. Probably because of this the Board while cancelling the list on 04/12/2007 did not terminate the services of those who were appointed from the list and who had completed probation in services. The petitioner who was candidate No. 78 in the list challenged the cancellation of the list by the Devasom Board vide Ext. P5 by filing the writ petition. Writ petition itself was filed only in 2008 and petitioner made publication in the newspaper calling upon interested persons to implead in the writ petition. Accordingly some of the persons who have been appointed by the Devaswom Board got impleaded in the writ petition and opposed the writ petition and the reliefs sought therein in 2010 to cancel the appointments made from the very same list. Even though main prayer in the writ petition was to retain the validity of the list so that the petitioner in the writ petition would get employment in the normal course during the currency of it, the learned Single Judge did not accept the same, but upheld the cancellation made by the Devaswom Board and beyond that the learned Single Judge directed the Board to terminate all appointments made from the list. It is pertinent to note that by the time the judgment is pronounced those people appointed in the Board already completed more than four years service and all of them have been made permanent much before the list was cancelled by the Board on 04/12/2007. The writ appeal is filed by the impleaded respondents and other aggrieved employees after obtaining leave from this Court. We have heard counsel appearing for all the appellants, the counsel appearing for the first respondent and standing counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board.

(2.) WE have gone through the relevant portions of the Justice Paripoornan Commission report wherein the Commission has found that appointment made to the post of Watchers is irregular and illegal. Admittedly under the notification inviting application for appointment candidate's eligibility was pass in 8th standard and physical fitness. The selection was made by conducting written examination for all the candidates and rank list is prepared based on the marks obtained in the written examination. The Commission has not found any illegality or impropriety in the written examination conducted and the select list prepared. However, Commission found fault with the Devaswom Board only because no physical fitness test was conducted before preparing the final list of candidates based on their ranking. However, we notice from the report itself that the Devaswom Board has informed the Commission that for appointment from the rank list, the candidate has to produce certificate of physical fitness from a Civil Surgeon. Admittedly we find that the notification inviting application for appointment did not visualise any physical ability test to rank the candidates based on their physical efficiency. On the other hand what was required was only physical fitness which the Board felt was only a condition for eligibility to be established through production of medical certificate. WE do not think the failure to conduct a physical test will affect the selection process because no physical efficiency test was contemplated in the notification and what was required was the candidate's eligibility, which is not physical efficiency but physical fitness. Therefore relative fitness of candidates is of no relevance in the selection process and what is required is physical fitness for selection. So much so, in our view the finding in the Commission Report should not be the sole basis for cancellation of the select list. Besides the apprehension of adverse findings by the Commission, the Board had no material when they cancelled the select list by their order dated 04/12/2007 which was issued even before the Commission submitted the report.