P K BALAMANI Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submitted an application on 22.4.2002 for being selected as the Stamp Vendor licensee in "Peruvanna City" in Kozhikode Taluk, on the basis of Ext.R3(a) notification dated 4.4.2002, issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhikode. The petitioner was called for an interview on 1.1.2003 as per Ext.P2 notice dated 5.12.2002. The petitioner appeared for the interview. The Original Petition is filed alleging that the third respondent was selected on extraneous considerations. The petitioner states that as per Ext.P1 application form, previous experience as a Stamp Vendor is a relevant criterion for selection. The petitioner had worked as Stamp Vendor at Pantheerankavu for a total period of two years, when the Stamp Vendor at Pantheerankavu was on leave. Ext.P3 issued by the Tahsildar, Kozhikode shows that the petitioner was allowed to work in the leave vacancy from 5.5.1994 to 4.11.1994. The petitioner was again appointed in the leave vacancy from 5.11.1994 to 4.5.1995, as per Ext.P4 proceedings, dated 13.1.1995, issued by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, she was again appointed in the leave vacancy from 11.5.2001 to 25.4.2002 by the District Treasury Officer, Kozhikode. The petitioner contends that her previous experience was not taken into account by the first respondent. The third respondent, who had no such previous experience, was selected under the pressure and influence of a political party. The prayers made in the Original Petition are for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the selection and appointment of the third respondent as Stamp Vendor in Peruvanna City in Kozhikode Taluk and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as Stamp Vendor.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent (the counter affidavit having been sworn to by the Junior Superintendent, Taluk Office, Kozhikode), it is contended, inter alia, as follows: Applications for appointment as Stamp Vendor were invited from eligible persons as per notification dated 18.4.2002, based on the proceedings dated 19.3.2002, issued by the District Collector, Kozhikode. 15 applications were received. Nine applicants were selected for interview. The interview was conducted by the Additional Tahsildar on 1.1.2003. The third respondent was selected and the selection was approved by the District Collector, Kozhikode on 14.1.2003.

(3.) An interim order dated 15.1.2003, was passed by this Court in the Original Petition, that the appointment of third respondent will be subject to the result of the Original Petition. However, on 23.3.2004, another order was passed by which it was clarified that the order dated 15.1.2003, will not stand in the way of appointing the third respondent as Stamp Vendor. The matter was reported to the District Collector on 18.8.2004 as the new Government Order, G.O.(P)No. 23-03/TD dated 7.2.2003, insists to form a District Committee consisting of District Collector, District Registrar and District Treasury Officer as members for examining the applications for the selection of Stamp Vendor and the District Treasury Officer to appoint the Stamp Vendor. The District Collector in his letter No. B4.30994/04 dated 20.9.2004, directed the Additional Tahsildar to take further steps to appoint the Stamp Vendor within a fortnight, as the said proposal was approved by the District Collector as early on 14.1.2003, prior to the new Government Order. On the basis of the said direction, the Additional Tahsildar appointed Smt. P.M.Komalavally (respondent No. 3) as the Stamp Vendor temporarily as per order No. K.Dis. 16272/01/02 dated 4.10.2004. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, there is no specific denial of the allegation made in the Writ Petition that there was political interference.