ABDUL RAZAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions raise a common issue with regard to the legality of the order dtd. 21/8/2017 of the State Government, which cancelled the select lists drawn up in connection with the selection to the posts of Chairman and Members of the Child Welfare Committees in various Districts in the State of Kerala. The said Government Order, while cancelling the select list drawn up, also cancelled further proceedings pursuant to the notification that invited applications from the candidates for the purposes of filling up of posts notified. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from Writ Petition No.31049 of 2017, which is taken as the lead case.

(2.) The petitioners had responded to Ext.P1 notification dtd. 4/6/2015, that called for applications from candidates, for filling up the posts of Member and Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committees in eight districts in the State. The statutory provisions prevailing at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 notification were contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2007 Act and Rules'). The petitioners herein, pursuant to the selection process, were included in a select list prepared by the Selection Committee for the Districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Alappuzha respectively. Although the select list prepared by the Selection Committee was forwarded to the State Government, it is not in dispute that the said select list was not published by the State Government and no appointments were made from the sad list. The delay in making appointments was apparently on account of the general elections that were notified in the State in 2016. However, when even after the elections, there were no steps taken by the State Government to effect appointments from the select list, one of the candidates who had been shortlisted for appointment as Member of the Child Welfare Committee in Ernakulam District (Seena Johnson), approached this Court through Writ Petition No.37778 of 2016, which was disposed by judgment dtd. 21/12/2016 (Ext.P7) directing the State Government to take a decision in the matter of appointment of that candidate within one month. The writ appeal that was preferred by the State Government against the said judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court through Ext.P8 judgment. A Special Leave Petition that was preferred by the State Government before the Supreme Court also did not meet with success, and the same was dismissed. As Ext.P8 judgment of this Court had thus attained finality, the writ petitioner in that case was appointed as a Member of the Child Welfare Committee in Ernakulam District, taking note of the Contempt Proceedings that had been initiated in the meanwhile alleging non compliance of the directions of the Division Bench in Ext.P8 judgment.

(3.) In these writ petitions, the petitioners who have been included in the same select list, but for different districts, contend that they too must get the benefit of Ext.P8 judgment that was rendered in the case of Seena Johnson since they are persons who are included in the same select list. In the writ petition, the prayer is for quashing Ext.P10 Government Order dtd. 21/8/2017, which cancels the select list, and for a further direction to the respondents to complete the process of appointment, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment pertaining to Seena Johnson.