Illegal appointment not legitimised by efflux of time: Kerala High Court sets aside appointment of Kochi Metro GM

The Kerala High Court recently annulled the appointment of Nireesh Chakkumkulangara as a General Manager (GM) of Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) as he had not attained the minimum age required for selection to the post [Suresh Geroge v Kochi Metro Rail Ltd & Ors.].Justice VG Arun held that the selection committee did not have the right to relax the requirements specified in the notification inviting applications to the post. Therefore, regardless of the time that had passed, such an appointment cannot be sanctified, the Court said. "Having found the appointment of the 6th respondent (Nireesh) to be illegal, this Court cannot shirk away from its responsibility by reason of delay in challenging the appointment. An illegal appointment will not get legitimised or sanctified by efflux of time," the Court held in its judgment. .Further, the Court deprecated the actions of the KMRL as having cast a cloud of suspicion over the selection process. "Being a public body, the action of the first respondent (KMRL) has to be transparent and above suspicion," the judgment stated. .The Court issued the judgement on a plea moved by the person who was ranked second in the list of candidates for appointment as GM (Marketing, Alternate Revenue and Corporate Communications) of the KMRL. The petitioner challenged the selection of the 6th respondent for the post on the ground that he had not attained the required age of 45 years on the date that the notification was issued.The petitioner's suspicions regarding irregularity in the appointment of the 6th respondent was fortified when the appointment to the post of General Manager (HR, Admin) was challenged at the High Court on the premise that the selected candidate did not have the notified educational qualification and experience. The challenge was upheld by the court..Advocate John Nellimala Sarai, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the appointment of Chakkumkulangar was ex-facie illegal since he fell short of the minimum age mandate by 19 days.Sarai argued that KMRL, being a public authority falling within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers cannot dole out favours to persons of their choice..Senior Advocate K Jaju Babu, appearing for KMRL, refuted the allegation of favoritism and pressed for dismissal on the ground the petitioner had delayed in filing the petition and that he had failed to secure the requisite marks..Advocate KA Abdul Salam , appearing for Chakkumkulangara, submitted that his client had outperformed the other candidates and the Committee found him to be the best suited person with relevant experience and required skill set. .The Court noted that even though Chakkumkulangara clearly did not satisfy the minimum age criterion, the scrutiny committee had recommended his name and the interview committee selected him, finding that he had broadly complied with the conditions. However, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar K Mandal v State of Bihar, the Court held that when prescription regarding age is stipulated in the notification, qualification based on age can only be in accordance with such stipulation. "Therefore, the irrefragable position is that the Scrutiny and Interview Committees had no authority to deviate from the notified qualification with respect to the minimum age of a candidate, whether it be for nineteen days or one day", the Court said in its judgement..Further, it stated that the contention that the petitioner has no legal right to challenge the appointment is liable to be rejected in view of the admitted position that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and secured second rank. Moreover, the Court opined that the plea of prejudice and hardship raised on behalf of Chakkumkulangara can't be countenanced, since hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law..Therefore, the Court held the selection and appointment of Chakkumkulangara as General Manager (Marketing, Alternate Revenue and Corporate Communications) to be illegal. The Court also directed the KMRL to take necessary consequential action within one month..[Read Judgment]