M.P. SHALINI Vs. CHAIRMAN, RUBBER ROAD, KEEZHUKUNNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was one of the candidates at an interview that was conducted by the Rubber Board for recruitment to the post of Peon, has filed this writ petition challenging the selection process contemplated by Ext.P5.

(2.) The petitioner is a person who has passed her standard IX. She belongs to a Scheduled Caste and is a visually challenged person suffering from 40% disability as evident from Ext.P1 series documents. She was an applicant for appointment to the post of Peon notified by the Rubber Board. She was directed to attend an interview on 27.6.2006 by Ext.P2 communication. Accordingly, she attended the interview that was conducted by a committee consisting of three members. Though she answered all the questions put to her by the Board, she was not even called for the second interview that was conducted. Her allegation is that had the selection process been conducted strictly following the Recruitment Rules, she would not have been eliminated at the first interview itself. Therefore she has filed this writ petition challenging the entire selection process.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the appointment to the various posts under the Rubber Board is regulated by the provisions of the Rubber Board (Services) Rules, 1961 ('Rules' for short), a true copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. The appointment to the post of Peon/Watcher has to be made in accordance with the schedule attached to Ext.P3 rules, which is produced as Ext.P5. The Rubber Board had apart from obtaining nomination from the Employment Exchanges also published notifications inviting applications by open advertisement in the Employment News and other periodicals. Ext.P5 is the copy of the said advertisement. More than 5000 candidates participated in response to the notification.