Kochi, Kerala: In a significant development challenging recruitment transparency in public enterprises, the Kerala High Court has stayed the appointment of a law officer at Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (KMML) following a writ petition alleging favouritism and procedural irregularities in the recruitment process.
The interim order was passed on December 30, 2025, by Justice K.V. Jayakumar while the court considers the substantive merits of the petition.
Background of KMML Law Officer Appointment Case
Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (KMML), a key public sector enterprise in Kerala, had initiated recruitment for the post of Law Officer through the Kerala Public Enterprises (Selection and Recruitment) Board. Following the completion of written examinations and interviews, a rank list was published, placing Hashim M. Kabeer as first, and D’cruz Anisha D. second.
Read also: Judge Udayakumar Suspended by Kerala High Court After Litigant Alleges Sexually Coloured Remarks
The petitioner, Anisha D., filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court alleging favouritism, biased evaluation, and procedural flaws in the selection process, contending that the published rank list failed to reflect an unbiased and merit-based recruitment.
Petitioner’s Allegations in KMML Law Officer Appointment Case
One central claim by the petitioner was that the candidate ranked first, Hashim M. Kabeer, lacked the prescribed qualifications as per the original recruitment notification.
The petitioner argued that Kabeer’s claimed litigation experience did not meet the minimum requirement of five years’ practice as an advocate, as he was allegedly employed elsewhere and pursuing higher studies during part of that period.
Interview Weightage & Transparency Concerns
The petition also challenged the weightage given to the interview, alleging that it contravened Clause 339 of the Manual of the Laws Relating to the Kerala Public Service Commission, which prescribes that interview marks should not exceed 20% of the written examination marks.
However, in this case, the board allotted up to 25 marks to the interview, resulting in skewed final scores disadvantaging the petitioner.
Anisha further asserted that the interview process lacked transparency, with no clear evaluation parameters or marking scheme disclosed, effectively giving the recruitment board excessive discretion and enabling arbitrary marking.
Allegations of Hostility and External Influence
The amended plea also alleged that the Managing Director of KMML, who took part in the interview panel, demonstrated hostile behaviour toward the petitioner and exerted influence that contributed to biased scoring favoring the first-ranked candidate.
It was further claimed that political affiliations related to the petitioner’s late father may have contributed to unjust treatment during the recruitment process.
Interim Order by the Kerala High Court
While hearing the case, Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued an interim order restraining the issuance of the appointment letter to Hashim M. Kabeer until January 5, 2026, allowing the court more time to examine the petition’s merits.
The interim direction emphasised that issuing an appointment letter before the court’s next hearing could render the petition’s relief “infructuous”, i.e., ineffective or redundant, especially if the legality of the selection process itself was found questionable.
Responses from KMML and Recruitment Authorities
In response to the petition, the Kerala Public Enterprises (Selection and Recruitment) Board filed a counter-affidavit opposing the allegations.
The board defended its conduct of the recruitment process, asserting that the selection and marking criteria adhered to established norms.
Details regarding the board’s specific arguments or legal position in the counter-affidavit have not been disclosed publicly as the matter is still sub-judice. However, standard legal practice suggests that the board will seek to justify the interview weightage and defend the qualifications of the appointed candidate.
Next Hearing and Outlook
The case is listed for further hearing on January 5, 2026, during which the court will review the petition’s substantive arguments and decide whether to uphold the interim stay or lift it, alongside evaluating whether the alleged irregularities merit quashing the rank list or directing a fresh recruitment process.
