MOHAMMED THANSEER T.T Vs. THE DIRECTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Mohammed Thanseer T.T
Click here to view full judgement.
RAMACHANDRA MENON ,J. -
(1.) Interference declined by the Tribunal [Central Administrative Tribunal] with regard to the relief sought for to direct the first respondent to proceed with Annexure A1 notification dated 03.09.2011 and complete the procedure within a stipulated time for appointment to the post of Tourism Officer in the Lakshadweep Administration, however permitting the Administration to proceed with the subsequent notification issued much later, based on the amended Rules and fill up the posts, is sought to be intercepted in this Original Petition.
(2.) The petitioner is a graduate in Hotel Mangement and was aspiring to have employment in the Lakshadweep Administration, he being a native of Lakshadweep islands. While so, the post of Tourism Officer was notified by the Administration as per Annexure A1 employment notice dated 03.09.2011. As per the notification, only one post was notified [group B] and candidates were to be within the age group of 18 to 30 years [relaxable to the extent as prescribed in respect of the different segments]. The essential qualification prescribed was graduation in the Hospitality Management or MBA/PGDIM/PGDBM or a similar PG Diploma in management. The desirable qualifications mentioned were ; (1) conversational ability in English & Hindi and (2) experience related in Tourism field. It was also mentioned that selection would be made as per the policy of the Administration, by giving weightage of 85 marks for the essential qualification and 15 marks for the desirable qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules to the said post. According to the petitioner, he satisfied the qualification and the age requirement mentioned in Annexure A1 and had submitted an application for the post as above.
(3.) While so, immediately after issuance of Annexure A1 notification, the same was subjected to challenge by another person by name Abdul Haseeb Ajmeeraini pointing out that the qualification prescribed for the post of Tourism Officer did not have 'Tourism' as a subject in the Degree or Diploma and that the Rule which was in existence since 1990 was sought to be changed by the Administration, issuing some executive orders, which was not correct or sustainable. It was accordingly, that a direction was sought for to conduct selection strictly in accordance with 1990 Recruitment Rules. The said claim was resisted by the Lakshadweep Administration pointing out that, as per the law declared by the Apex Court in J. Rangaswami Vs. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1990 SC 535], it was not for the Court to consider the relevance of the qualifications prescribed for the post and that as per the declaration in P.U. Joshi Vs. Accountant Generala [(2003) 2 SCC 632] it was held that it would be open within the competency of the State to change the Rules relating to service and alter, amend or vary by addition or subtraction of qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion from time to time depending on the administrative exigencies. It was also pointed out that the applicant had failed to submit the application on time and that the application sent by him by registered post was after the cut off date and hence not a valid application. After considering the rival pleadings, interference was declined and the O.A. was dismissed as per Annexure A3 verdict passed on 29.07.2015;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.