The petitioner whose name appears in Ext.P1 ranked list of Coaches prepared by the Kerala State Sports Council has filed this writ petition challenging the select list to the extent it includes the name of the fourth respondent. He also seeks a declaration that the inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent in the select list is arbitrary and illegal and that the fifth respondent is liable to retire from service on the basis that his date of birth is 30.11.1956. 2. The inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent in the ranked list is challenged on the ground that his name was belatedly included on account of political influence, namely change of Government. It is also contended that when the ranked list was prepared the name of the fourth respondent was not even considered. The continuance of the fifth respondent in service is challenged on the ground that his date of birth is 30.11.1956 and therefore he should retire from service in November 2013. The petitioner challenges the continuance in service of the fifth respondent and selection of the fourth respondent on the ground that if the fifth respondent retires, he can be appointed in that vacancy and if the fourth respondent is not available for the appointment, he can be appointed against that twin. It is also contended that even assuming that the fifth respondent can continue in service beyond 30.11.2013, he is entitled to be preferred over the fourth respondent on the ground that the inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent in the select list is illegal.
3. I have by judgment delivered on 8.3.2013 in W.P.(C) No.28259 of 2012 held that the date of birth of the fifth respondent is 8.4.1958, that the date of birth was rightly corrected as 8.4.1958 in the place of 30.11.1956 and consequently he will be entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation reckoning his date of birth as 8.4.1958. The challenge to the continuance in service of the fifth respondent in service must therefore necessarily fail.
4. As regards the inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent, respondents 2 and 3 have in their counter affidavit stated that though he was also a candidate for the test and interview and his name also included in the short list, his name was excluded from the rank list pursuant to the decision taken by the standing committee on 21.12.2010 for the reason that disciplinary action was pending against him. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that later after enquiry the fourth respondent was exonerated of the charges and that he was appointed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.R2(a) judgment delivered on 13.12.2012 in W.P.(C) No.29137 of 2012, as per proceedings dated 12.12.2012.
5. It is evident from a reading of Ext.R2(a) judgment of this Court and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3 that it was pursuant to a direction issued by this Court that the fourth respondent's name was included in Ext.P1 select list. His name was not included initially on the ground that at the time when the select list was prepared he was facing disciplinary action. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that he was exonerated of all the charges in the enquiry, but notwithstanding the said fact his name was not included in the select list. He therefore approached this Court complaining about the non-inclusion of his name. He had also pointed out that a vacancy had arisen on 30.11.2012 consequent on the retirement of Sri.R.Ramanathan who was the District Sports Officer, Pathanamthitta. He had also alerted this Court about the fact that the ranked list will expire on 31.12.2012. Taking note of these facts, this Court directed the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the fourth respondent on 20.11.2012 and take an appropriate decision thereon within ten days from date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was pursuant thereto that respondents 1 and 2 took a decision to appoint him.
6. In such circumstances as the fourth respondent had also participated in the selection process and his name was not included in the select list only for the reason that at the time when the ranked list was finalised he was facing disciplinary action, it cannot be said that the inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent in the select list after he was exonerated is arbitrary and illegal.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. It fails and is dismissed.
rkc.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.