A.N.SRINGESWARA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the appointment of Dr.Shijo Joseph to the post of Scientist-E1 (Remote Sensing) in the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI for short) which is an institution under the control of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council'). The parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.(C).No.3403 of 2017 unless expressly specified otherwise.

(2.) W.P.(C).No.3403 of 2017 was filed on 31.01.2017 challenging Ext.P8 rank list for appointment of Scientist E1 (Remote Sensing) published on 25.02.2016 and Ext.P9 order dated 24.02.2016 offering appointment to Shijo Joseph-the 6th respondent and seeks a declaration that the Director of KFRI does not have the authority to make appointment and that appointment can be made only by the Managing Committee. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh selection.

(3.) Petitioner herein-Roby T.J Claims that he had submitted application for appointment as Scientist-EI (Remote Sensing) pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued on 11.09.2015. He is a Post Graduate Degree holder in Botany with Ph.D with post doctoral experience. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued on 11.09.2015, he submitted his application Ext.P4. It is stated that he was not called for interview and was not considered for selection. According to him the 6th respondent does not have Post Graduate qualification in Biological Science. His Post Graduate Degree is in Environment and Management and hence he does not have the qualification for appointment to the post. It is alleged that the 6th respondent is not appointed by the appointing authority. The Managing Committee constituted under the rules of the Council is the appointing authority for the post of Scientists upto the level of F. It is stated that in February 2016 there was no Managing Committee in office as the tenure of the Committee had expired on 22.03.2014. It is stated that the Committee was re-constituted only on 27.04.2016 and therefore at the time of appointment there was no Managing Committee in power. Petitioner also claims that refusal to consider his candidature was not proper. Therefore it is alleged that the appointment of the 6th respondent as per Ext.P9 order, was without authority.