SANJEESH S S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these cases applied to be appointed as Additional Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors in the district of Thiruvananthapuram; and it is conceded that a list of such persons were drawn up by the District Collector and placed before the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in terms of the directions of this Court in Aju Mathew and others vs. State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2018(5) KHC 770].

(2.) The petitioners project their grievance that, even though the learned District Judge is stated to have made an assessment of all the persons in the list provided to him by the District Collector, they were excluded from the Final Panel prepared in terms of Aju Mathew (supra), but without assigning any reason whatsoever. They assert that they are all experienced lawyers, with sufficient period of practice; and therefore, that they could not have been found incapable of being recommended by the learned District Judge, as has been done in these cases. They thus pray that the Panel now prepared by the District Collector - in which their names have been included, with the remark that they are "not recommended" by the learned District Judge - be set aside; and the Government of Kerala be directed to consider them also for appointment to the post in question.

(3.) Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.15015 of 2023 and 15046/2023, argued that, subsequent to Aju Mathew (supra), a learned Judge of this Court considered the law again, to issue judgment in WP(C)No.31269/2022 and connected matters - a copy of which is on recorded as Ext.P4 along with WP(C)No.15015/2023. He pointed out that, in paragraph nine of the afore said judgment, the learned Judge has held that the word 'specific grounds' mentioned in Rule 8(2)(c) of the Kerala Government Law Officer (appointment ad conditions of service) and Conduct of Case Rules, 1978 ("KGLO Rules" for short hereinafter) assumes great relevance as it indicates that rejection of names can be only for valid reasons. He argued out that, therefore, when his clients have been found not deserving of being "recommended" by the learned District Judge, but without being recorded or told as to why this has been so held, it amounts to violation of the declarations of law by this Court in Aju Mathew (supra), as also, Ext.P4 in WP(C)No.15015 of 2023. He thus prayed that the Government be directed to consider his clients also for appointment to the posts in question, dehors the remarks recorded against them in the Panel now prepared by the District Judge.