C. THANGARAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 18666 of 2015. The writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for the following reliefs :

(2.) A Search-cum-Selection Committee was approved by the President of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology & Environment (for short KSCSTE) for making appointment to the post of Executive Director in the Centre for Water Resources Development & Management (2nd respondent herein). The process of selection was initiated by the Search- cum-Selection Committee by issuing Ext.P1 notification on 01.12.2011, 11 candidates responded to the notification. Search-cum-Selection Committee interviewed three candidates who turned up for the interview and out of the said three candidates the petitioner was found to be the 'best suited' for the post. However, when no further steps were taken, W.P.(C) No.24214 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner, wherein Ext.P6 interim order was passed. Meanwhile, a fresh notification, Ext.P5, was issued by the Search-cum-Selection Committee on the decision of the Government which was challenged by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 19.02.2015 taking the view that petitioner having been found as the best suitable candidate, the petitioner's name has to be forwarded. It was also observed that the President is free to dissent with the findings of the Search-cum- Selection Committee for any reason, legally sustainable. After the aforesaid direction, the matter was again taken for consideration by the 3rd respondent and Ext.P8 order dated 14.05.2015 was passed. The President giving certain reasons in the order decided to re-notify the vacancy to find out the most eligible person from the panel consisting of more than one eligible person. The said order (Ext.P8) was challenged in W.P. (C) No.18666 of 2015. By amending the writ petition which was permitted by this Court, the petitioner has challenged Ext.P10 notification dated 24.06.2015 also. Consequent to Ext.P8 order the re-notification was issued on 24.06.2015. Learned Single Judge heard the writ petition and by judgment dated 02.11.2015 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has come up in the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the judgment submitted that the appellant having been found the best suitable candidate and the learned Single Judge by Ext.P7 judgment having already directed to forward the name of the appellant for consideration for the post of Executive Director, on the same reasons, the President could not have rejected the claim of petitioner which was earlier taken by him. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge though by Ext.P7 order had observed that the President is free to dissent with the finding of the Committee for any reason legally sustainable, there is no legally sustainable reason and the order, Ext.P8, was unsustainable. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge by Ext.P7 order has already held that even the name of one person can be sent for consideration. Hence it was not necessary to send a panel, as has been now decided under Ext.P8 order. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.P8 does not contain any reason on what basis the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner could have been turned down.