N SUDHAKRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N.Sudhakaran and M.Muhammed Kabir were rival applicants for the allotment of an AWD. Muhammed Kabir was a workman in an AWD and Sudakaran was a workman in an ARD. Going by the materials on record, (see the comparative table of qualifications extracted in paragraph 4 of Ext.P5 judgment), experience is a criterion for consideration. The experience of the two rivals are also stated therein.

(2.) EXT.P5 judgment was issued by a learned Single Judge, directing that the District Collector should reconsider the 'comparative suitability' of Sudhakaran and Muhammed Kabir in the light of the observations contained in that judgment. The direction was to re-evaluate the comparative merits of those two persons in the light of the observations made in that judgment and to pass fresh orders. Obviously, therefore, the District Collector stood obliged to make a comparative evaluation of the experience held out by the two applicants. That direction was unsuccessfully challenged by Sudhakaran before the Division Bench. Among other things, in that appeal, Sudhakaran had contended, going by the pleadings therein, that Ext.P5 judgment amounts to rewriting the statutory rules as to prescriptions of eligibility conditions. The Division Bench issued Ext.P6 cautiously limiting the procedure to be, to first consider the dispute about the solvency certificate, and thereafter; depending upon the outcome of the genuineness of the solvency certificate of Muhammed Kabir; to proceed with the enquiry indicated in Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench and Ext.P5 judgment of the learned single Judge. This means that the Bench kept intact the responsibility of the District Collector to make a comparative re- evaluation of the merits of the rival candidates. Obviously, as noted earlier, this included the requirement that the District Collector shall evaluate the comparative experience held out by the two candidates; one as a workman of an ARD and the other as a workman of AWD.

(3.) IN fact, following Exts.P5 and P6, the District Collector decided that Sudhakaran is eligible to be granted the licence. Muhammed Kabir filed an application before the learned single Judge alleging contempt of the directions contained in Ext.P5. Pending that, the District Collector appears to have appeared before the Court. He says that it was then that he understood that there was an erroneous approach, though there was no act on his side except in accordance with his good faith. In that situation, he issued an order dated 27.06.2012, whereby he vacated the earlier order and held that Muhammed Kabir is more eligible than Sudhakaran. Unfortunately, that was without notice to Sudhakaran. Therefore, he filed W.P.(C).No.15160 of 2012 alleging that the aforesaid order has been issued by the District Collector without affording an opportunity of hearing and that the District Collector did not have the power of review.