TESSY ABRAHAM Vs. ANITHAKUMARY K S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the selection made to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala for the reason that the method of selection was subsequently changed by the selection committee by including computer aptitude test.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, counsel appearing for the first Respondent (the Petitioner in the Writ Petition), learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 and the counsel appearing for the party Respondents, who took notice on admission.

(3.) Applications for selection to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department were invited from the employees of the Government Departments on appointment by transfer basis prescribing educational qualifications and the period of service required alternatively in the Class III cadre. Even though the method of selection was not prescribed in the notification dated 3.3.2009 produced as Ext.P1 in the Writ Petition, subsequently, the Director of Social Welfare issued Ext.R5(b) on 23.7.2009 wherein the method of selection was prescribed. It is seen fromExt.R5(b) that a written test has to be conducted for selection and the same was entrusted with a Government agency, namely, I.M.G. Out of 100, 70 marks were provided for written examination and 30 marks for interview. Under Clause 3 of Ext.R5(b), out of 30 provided for interview, 10 marks were provided for computer aptitude test. Pursuant to the notification inviting applications and based on Ext.R5(b) prescribed subsequently, written test was held on 21.3.2010. Based on the marks obtained in the written test, a short list was prepared and the candidates included in the short list were called for interview. While sending the interview cards, copy of which received by the 1st Respondent in the writ appeal who is the Petitioner in the Writ Petition, is produced as Ext.P6, the authorities specifically incorporated the condition in Ext.R5(b) that 10 marks in the interview is for computer aptitude test. Ext.P6 dated 6.7.2010 was issued to the first Respondent who came out successfully in the written test and in response to the same, she along with other successful candidates participated in the interview. She got 4 marks out of 10 in the computer aptitude test. When the final rank list was published, the 1st Respondent went down in the rank list while several others who scored better were placed above her. At this stage, the 1st Respondent filed Writ Petition contending that the computer aptitude test prescribed subsequently is unauthorised and therefore selection is invalid or at least that part of the selection process involving computer aptitude test should be declared illegal. The learned Single Judge by relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court held that method of selection is changed by the selection committee by including the computer aptitude test subsequently and therefore he cancelled the selections. The learned Single Judge after cancelling the computer aptitude test, directed fresh selection based on marks obtained in the written test and interview, that is by excluding the marks obtained by all candidates in the computer aptitude test. It is against this judgment, one of the successful candidates who got selection filed this Writ Appeal.