G. SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Selection and appointment of Industrial Tribunal, Idukki at Peerumedu is under challenge in this writ petition. Is it necessary to satisfy the requirements of Article 234 of the Constitution of India and if not, does it in any manner violate the ratio of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioner s Association & ors., 1998 AIR(SC) 1233 in this regard, is the point to be considered.

(2.) The petitioner is a lawyer by profession, mainly practising before the District and other subordinate Courts at Kollam, besides various Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals in the State. The petitioner was desirous of being appointed as Industrial Tribunal and had participated in the process of selection long ago, he could not secure appointment due to some or other reasons. Later, the petitioner was let known of the ongoing steps to fill up the post of Industrial Tribunal, Idukki; pursuant to which, he submitted his proforma and willingness/consent to be considered and appointed, if selected. Pursuant to this, the petitioner was served with Ext. P1 memo dated 18.10.2010 to appear for an interview scheduled on 01.11.2010. The petitioner has quite surprisingly approached this Court seeking to stall the process of selection, including the interview scheduled on 01.11.2010 contending that the constitution of the Selection Committee was against the procedure declared by the Apex Court and that the process itself was bad as the zone of consideration was restricted only to 'one source', despite the amendment of the Statute, denying opportunity to persons belonging to other sources from being considered.

(3.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 29.10.2010, the writ petition was admitted and the petitioner was also directed to be interviewed on the relevant date. Subsequently, as per the interim order dated 11.11.2010 passed in the connected case i.e., W.P. (C) No. 31963 of 2010, the respondent Government was directed not to make any appointment, without obtaining orders from the Court and the said case was ordered to be listed along with this writ petition. Later, W.P. (C) No. 31963 of 2010 came up for further consideration before this Court on 28.10.2011, when the learned Counsel for the concerned petitioner submitted that the main relief sought for in the writ petition had already been satisfied in so far as the said writ petitioner was also interviewed, pursuant to the interim order dated 27.07.2010 and was ranked at 'Sl. No. 13' in the Select List. In view of the said ranked position, based on the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of availability of only 'one vacancy', the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, as per the judgment dated 28.10.2011.