SALI G Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wp(C) NO.41536 of 2016

(2.) Petitioners claim that they are duly qualified for appointment as Craft/Sewing Teachers. As per Ext.P1 order dated 5.10.2016 Government decided to appoint 2514 specialist teachers in LP/UP Schools having roll strength in excess of 150/100. The Ministry of Human Resources Development had allotted the requisite fund for the same for the year 2016-17 for the purpose of imparting elementary education to the children of the age of 6 to 14 in Arts, Physical Education and Work Experience. The appointments were to be made on contract basis as part time instructors, based on interview after calling for list of candidates from Employment Exchange and in case there is delay in getting the list from Employment Exchange, after advertisement in newspapers. Government ordered that a representative of the Project Director of SSA, representative of Director of Public Instruction and an expert in the concerned subject shall constitute the interview board. It was also ordered that preference should be given to the candidates included in current rank list of PSC for the respective category. The State Project Director was directed to take appropriate steps to make appointments. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the District Project Officers invited applications from qualified hands for contract appointments.

(3.) Petitioners submitted applications for appointment as Specialist Teachers in Craft in SSA, Kollam. They claimed that they have registered their names with the Employment Exchange in the years 1985, 1992, 1986 and 1992 and they have been working as Craft/Sewing Teachers for a long time. Petitioners have produced Exts.P2 to P14 documents in support of their claim regarding the qualification and experience. It is stated that 1st petitioner is qualified in costume design and dress making and is having experience in the field from 1998 onwards. The 2nd petitioner has acquired the certificate in tailoring, embroidery, needle work (higher) issued by State Board of Technical Examination. It is stated that she had attended the interview conducted by the PSC on 25.8.2000. The 3rd petitioner is also having the very same qualification and she is having experience in the field from 12.6.1995 onwards. The 4th petitioner is also having similar qualification and is having experience from 1.9.1994. All of them appeared in the interview. But they were not included in the rank list, though several persons who are not qualified were included. Ext.P24 rank list published on 22.12.2016 is produced along with I.A No.1418 of 2017. Petitioners submitted representations Exts.P20 and P20(a) to the District Panchayat President and to the 3rd respondent complaining that their names were not included in the rank list, despite their seniority and experience. Petitioners alleged that there were serious irregularities in the process of selection leading to Ext.P24 rank list in which ineligible persons are included and eligible hands like petitioners were kept out. They stated that teachers who are far juniors having less experience and those who were trained under the petitioners are included in the rank list and were appointed.