LAWS(KER)-2018-1-86

SALINI G L Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 08, 2018
Salini G L Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 rank list for appointment to the post of specialist teachers in Drawing/Painting made under the Sarva Siksha Abhian (SSA), alleging that the same is vitiated by irregularities. Petitioners have sought for directions to respondents 2 to 5 to constitute a selection board in accordance with Ext.P1 order and to make appointments against vacancies occupied by respondents 6 to 19 after preparing a rank list after conducting an interview verifying the qualification and experience of candidates.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent-the District Project Officer, SSA, Thiruvananthpuram issued Ext.P2 notification on 14.10.2016 inviting applications for appointment to the post of specialist teachers for imparting education in Arts, Physical Education and Work Experience in LP/UP Schools in Thiruvananthapuram from among qualified hands. Petitioners submitted applications for the same, for which selection was being made based on walk in interview. Last date fixed for receipt of applications was 20.10.2016. Applicants were directed to report for the interview on 24.10.2016, at Government Chala Girls Higher Secondary School compound, with all the requisite documents. It was stated that those who are included in PSC list and have registered their names with Employment Exchange would get preference. For detailed information, candidates were required to visit wwwkeralassa.org.

(3.) The petitioners submit that no interview board was constituted in accordance with Ext.P1 order or as per Ext.R2(b) order issued by the Director on 01.11.2016. It is alleged that marks were not awarded in accordance with the procedure prescribed; those who did not have any additional qualification or experience were given more marks, while the petitioners who were having sufficient experience as well as additional qualifications were not given marks for it. Further contention is that even a list was not called for from the Employment Exchange, even though sufficient time was available before interview was conducted. According to the petitioners, since the marks were awarded at the whims and fancies of the respondents, the entire rank list is liable to be cancelled. It is pointed out that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the 1st petitioner was given appointment. Petitioners' case is that the 1st petitioner was entitled to be given appointment much earlier along with the party respondents.