SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Ker) 13

Judges : V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI,K.K.NARENDRAN
RETNAMMA - Appellant
Versus
KPSC. - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 4702 of 1974
Decided On : 01/13/1977
Advocates Appeared :
V. M. Prabhakaran Nair; Jose K. Kochupappu; For Petitioner S. Easwara Iyer; V. P. Mohanakumar; T. P. Kelu Nambiar; For Respondents

The inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list does not confer a claim to appointment, and the provisions of R.3(a) only apply to first appointments to a service, not temporary postings.

Headnote:

Public Service Commission - Recruitment - Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 - R.3, R.9 - G.O. (MS) 104/69 - The court discussed the mandatory duty of the appointing authority to notify vacancies to the Public Service Commission and the validity of filling vacancies by posting aided school teachers. The court held that the inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list does not confer a claim to appointment, and the provisions of R.3(a) only apply to first appointments to a service, not temporary postings. The court found that the action taken by the 2nd respondent in implementing G.O. (MS) 104/69 was legal and dismissed the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for recruitment as a Senior Language Teacher (Hindi) but claimed that vacancies were filled by the 2nd respondent in contravention of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had no enforceable right or claim to be appointed into the vacancies and dismissed the petition.

Issues: The issues included the mandatory duty to notify vacancies to the Public Service Commission, the validity of filling vacancies by posting aided school teachers, and the eligibility of respondents for the benefits of G.O. (MS) 104/69.

Ratio Decidendi: The inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list does not confer a claim to appointment, and the provisions of R.3(a) only apply to first appointments to a service, not temporary postings.

Final Decision: The Original Petition fails and is dismissed, with no order for costs.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner had applied to the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the category of Senior Language Teachers (Hindi) in the School Education Department of the State Government. The results of the selection conducted by the Public Service Commission were notified in the Kerala Gazette (Part 1 B) dated 29 21972 and the petitioner's name was included in the list of candidates selected for appointment in Palghat District. The rank assigned to the petitioner in the select list in the order of merit was No. 6. It was stated in the notification that the said list was to be in force with effect from 2 81971. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that certain vacancies of Senior Language Teachers (Hindi) had arisen in the Palghat District during the period when the said select list was in force, those vacancies were fill d up by the 2nd respondent (Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Calicut) by posting aided school teachers, who were entitled to the benefit of the protection conferred by G. O. (MS) 104/69/ Edn. dated 6 31969. Because of the failure on the part of the appointing authority to notify these vacancies to the Public Service Commission the petitioner is said to have lost her chances of getting appointed to any of those vacancies.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that under R.3 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 there was a mandatory duty cast on the appointing authority to notify the vacancies to the Public Service Commission and to fill up the vacancies only by appointing the candidates advised by the Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner, in deviating from the aforesaid procedure and filling up the vacancies by posting aided school teachers to work on deputation basis or otherwise, the 2nd respondent has acted in manifest contravention of the mandatory provision contained in R.3 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and the said action is therefore illegal. Alternatively it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has acted illegally in filling up two vacancies that had arisen in Government High Schools in the Palghat District by posting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to work in those vacancies despite the fact that respondents Nos 3 and 4 are language teachers of aided schools who were not entitled to the benefit of G.O. (MS) 104/69. On the strength of the aforesaid averments the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the 2nd respondent to report to the 1st respondent the Kerala Public Service Commission the next vacancy of Senior Language Teacher (Hindi) so as to enable the 1st respondent to advise the petitioner's name for appointment against the said vacancy.

3. In our opinion there are insuperable difficulties in the way of the petitioner in claiming any relief from this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. Firstly, R.3 (b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules clearly lays down that the inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of approved candidates for any service, State or Subordinate, or any class or category in a service, shall not confer on him any claim to appointment to the service, class or category. The petitioner cannot therefore contend merely on the strength of the inclusion of her name in the select list published by the Public Service Commission that she has acquired a legally enforcible right to be appointed to the post of Senior Language Teacher From the averments contained in the Original Petition itself it is seen that the turn for appointment of the petitioner had not arrived during the period when the select list was in force. It may be that this was due. to the fact that all the vacancies which had arisen during that period were not notified to the Public Service Commission by the appointing authority and instead, some of those vacancies were filled up by posting language teachers of aided schools, who were entitled



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top