Planning & Management Unit functions For Court Purposes: Kerala High Court Upholds Employee’s Appointment To Senior System Officer Post Under E-Court Project
The Kerala High Court also held that the Planning and Management Unit is one under the Government of Kerala, but with functions assigned for Court purposes.
The Kerala High Court has upheld the appointment of an employee to the post of Senior System Officer under the E-Courts project after noting that her requisite work experience had been certified. The High Court also discarded the contention that the work profile and experience of a System Assistant in the “Planning and Management Unit” could not be reckoned for employment under the e-Courts project.
The High Court also held that the “Planning and Management Unit” at the High Court is one under the Government of Kerala, but with functions assigned for the purposes of the Court.
The appellant approached the High Court, assailing the judgment of a Single Judge whereby the first respondent was held eligible to be considered for appointment to its services as a “Senior System Officer.”
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji held, “We are fully cognizant that the “Planning and Management Unit” at the High Court is one under the Government of Kerala, but with functions assigned for the purposes of the Court. Ext.P1 notification does not say that the candidate must be working as a System Assistant in the High Court of Kerala, but that he/she ought to have work experience of three years and above in the “e-Courts project” in Kerala in such capacity, or higher.”
“In such perspective, we cannot find the learned Single Judge to have erred in any manner, particularly since he has held that the experience garnered by the 1st respondent at least after Ext.P15, would sufficiently answer the requisites mandated by Ext.P1 notification”, it added.
Advocate M.R. Anison represented the Appellant, while Advocate K.M.Firoz represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the appellants that the first respondent did not have the work experience as required under Ext.P1 notification; and consequently, the declarations in the judgment were incorrect and impermissible.
It was the case of the respondent that he was directly involved in the “e-Courts project” as a System Assistant at least from the date on which the assigning order was issued i.e. June 29, 2020.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that, as per the Experience Certificate issued by the appellants themselves, the first respondent was certified to have “supported the ongoing e-Court projects through technical support for the smooth functioning of various projects rolled out in Subordinate Courts.” It was further noticed that as per Ext.P15, which is an order issued by the appellants themselves on June 29, 2020, several persons including the respondent, were specifically ordered to be assigned to the “e-Courts project” and further stipulated that they would be used by the Technical Director of the National Informatics Centre of the High Court for implementation of the “e-Courts project”.
“One, therefore, fails to comprehend how the appellants now take the stand that the 1st respondent does not have any experience in the “e-Courts project”, solely because she was earlier working as a System Assistant in the “Planning and Management Unit” at the High Court of Kerala”, it added.
The Bench noted that the notification only required three years of experience or above as on its date, namely October 27, 2023, and the Experience Certificate issued to the first respondent by the appellants themselves was dated December 11, 2023, thus rendering it ineluctable that the requisite work experience had been certified.
The Bench thus held that the Single Judge had not erred in any manner and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: The High Court of Kerala V. Aneena Joseph (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:37899)