SURESH BABU Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPOINTMENT to a public post is a serious matter.It cannot be dealt with in a casual or whimsical manner.Such was the approach in the appointment to a post in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation Ltd.( hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation ') is the complaint of the writ petitioner.The legality and constitutionality of the action is challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) THE complaint of the petitioner is that the impugned action has deprived him of his legal and constitutional rights.He has sought curial correction by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.According to the petitioner,the Corporation is an authority coming within Art.12 of the Constitution and is,therefore,amenable to the writ jurisdiction.The Corporation not having conformed to the constitutional requirements binding on it,particularly Art.14 and 16,is,according to the petitioner,to be commanded by this court to strictly adhere to those constitutional provisions.

(3.) ARGUMENTS in the case were heard,for the first time on 30th October,1981 and 4th November,1981.It was then felt that the pleadings of the petitioner and of the 2nd respondent regarding the nature and status of the Corporation were not adequate.I,therefore,directed by my order dated 16th November,1981 to file additional pleadings with further particulars on that point.The C.M.Ps.referred to above,and the additional affidavit of the 2nd respondent dated 15th December,1981 were filed thereafter.In the course of the hearing,it was also noticed that there were contradictory and unsatisfactory statements in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent.In answer to my query,counsel for the Corporation informed me that the files relating to the interview and appointments were not available.It was then felt that at least some of the relevant facts would be discernible from the Government files leading to Ext.P -6 Government letter dated 23rd January,1978.( The Government had apparently but unjustifiably adopted an attitude of utter unconcern in the litigation.Despite its being the 1st respondent in the petition and the fact that its action under Ext.P -6 had been challenged,no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Government.) In the then prevailing circumstances,I directed the Government to produce the files relating to Ext.P -6 letter.These directions are contained in the order dated 16th November,1981.