Back
1998 Supreme(Ker) 652
High Court of Kerala
Arunachalam Chettiar Lakshmanan, K.V. Sankaranarayanan, JJ.
Mayakrishnan R & Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors - Respondent
O.P. No. 11764 of 1996
Decided On : 16-04-1998
Headnote:
AMENDMENT TO GENERAL RULES - CONFLICT WITH SPECIAL RULES - SPECIAL RULES PREVAIL - DIRECT RECRUITMENT QUOTA - 20% OF SUCCESSIVE SUBSTANTIVE VACANCIES - CADRE STRENGTH - NOT APPLICABLE - AMENDMENT INAPPLICABLE TO PENDING SELECTION PROCESS - VESTED RIGHT OF CANDIDATES - APPOINTMENT TO BE MADE AS PER SPECIAL RULES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners applied for selection as Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department. They were selected and included in the ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). However, the authorities were not taking steps to appoint any of the selected candidates against the vacancies earmarked for direct recruits. The petitioners approached the court for a mandamus commanding the respondents to fill up the quota earmarked for direct recruits and declare that the amendment to Rule 5 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules brought out as per Ext.P-2 notification dated December 5, 1992 does not adversely affect the right of the direct recruits to get appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers in the Department of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax as provided by Rule 2 of the Special Rules in respect of the said department.
Finding of the Court:
1. The amendment brought to the General Rules will not take away the right accrued to the petitioners/appellants for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers. 2. The amendment to the General Rules go in conflict with the Special Rules and that will not hamper the rights of persons arising out of the Special Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment brought to the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) as per notification G.O.(P) No.57/1992/P&ARD dated December 5, 1992 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Rules) Department of the Government of Kerala would take away the rights of the petitioners in the Original Petitions for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers? 2. When the Special Rules clearly speak of the method of recruitment, whether any amendment to the General Rules, which go in conflict with the Special Rules, will hamper the rights of persons arising out of the special rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Special Rules for the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Service provide that 20% of the successive substantive vacancies shall be filled or reserved to be filled up by direct recruitment. This provision is in conflict with the amendment to Rule 5 of the General Rules, which provides that the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time. 2. The amendment to Rule 5 of the General Rules is repugnant to the Special Rules and, therefore, cannot take away the rights of the petitioners/appellants for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers. 3. The amendment to Rule 5 of the General Rules is also inapplicable to the pending selection process, as it was brought after the selection process had commenced and the ranked list had been published.
Final Decision: All the Original Petitions and Writ Appeals are allowed. The Secretary, Board of Revenue (Taxes) is directed to work out 20% of the successive substantive vacancies for direct recruitment as on August 11, 1987 and arising thereafter as per the Special Rules and report the same to the Public Service Commission on or before May 12, 1998 so as to enable the Public Service Commission to advise the eligible candidates for appointment.
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Two common questions arise for determination in these cases, viz. (1) whether the amendment brought to the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) as per notification G.O.(P) No.57/1992/P&ARD dated December 5, 1992 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Rules) Department of the Government of Kerala would take away the rights of the petitioners in the Original Petitions for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers? (2) when the Special Rules clearly speak of the method of recruitment, whether any amendment to the General Rules, which go in conflict with the Special Rules, will hamper the rights of persons arising out of the special rules.
O.P. No. 13871 of 1997.
2. The petitioners in this Original petition applied for selection to the post of Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax Department pursuant to the notification published in the gazette dated August 11, 1987 by the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission'). They got selected and included in the ranked list published by the Commission on May 13, 1995, their rank numbers being 77, 89 and 104. The ranked list is produced and marked as Ext.P-1. Ext.P-1 has come into force with effect from May 13, 1995 and would expire on May 12, 1998. Since the authorities are not taking any steps to appoint any of the selected candidates against the vacancies that arose in the quota earmarked for direct recruits and since only a limited number of candidates have been so far appointed, the petitioners approached this Court for a mandamus commanding the respondents to fill up the quota earmarked for direct recruitees to the post of Sales Tax Officers in the Department of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax on the basis of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre and not on the basis of the cadre strength of the permanent cadre; and also to declare that the amendment to Rule 5 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules Part II brought out as per Ext.P-2 notification dated December 5, 1992 does not adversely affect the right of the direct recruitees to get appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers in the Department of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax as provided by Rule 2 of the Special Rules in respect of the said department.
3. Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Service consists of five categories of officers. Category No. 3 consists of the following posts:
"Category 3: Agricultural Income Tax Officers, Intelligence Officers, Sales Tax Officers, Additional Law Officer, Manager, Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunals, Superintendents in the Office of the Board of Revenue (Taxes) and Managers in the Offices of the Deputy Commissioners of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax."
Rule 2 deals with appointment to various categories which shall be made as follows:
|
| " Category | Method of Appointment
|
| 1. | * * * | * * * |
| 1A. | * * * | * * * |
| 2. | * * * | * * * |
| 3. | Agricultural Income Tax Officers, Intelligence Offices, Sales Tax Officers, Additional Law Officer, Manager, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunals, Superintendents in the Office of the Board of Revenue (Taxes) and Managers in the Offices of the Deputy Commissioners of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax. | 20% of the successive substantive vacancies shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining shall be filled or reserved to be filled by transfer of Assistant Sales Tax Officers, Sales Tax Inspectors, Agricultural Income Tax Inspectors, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Inspectors, Intelligence Inspectors, Checkpost |
