The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope for judicial interference in administrative decisions, the principles of judicial review, and the consideration of public interest, public policy, and public purpose in administrative actions.

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

1. Questioning correctness of appointment given to third respondent on re-employment basis, petitioner, who was working as Personal Assistant in State Planning Board (in short, the Board), had filed O.P. No. 15914 of 1996. Learned Single Judge found that there was nothing illegal in the appointment made and dismissed the petition.

2. In this Writ Appeal filed under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1959 (in short, the Act), petitioner urged that third respondent, who retired on 30th June 1996, has been given re-employment in clear violation of all norms in an apparent act of favouritism and nepotism. Such employment is not in public interest and totally opposed to R.60 (a) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules, 1959 (in short, the Rules).

3. Factual position, as highlighted by parties, is as follows: Third respondent retired on 30th June 1996 on superannuation. Vice Chairman of the Board desired that sanction may be accorded for continuance of the post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chairman co-terminus with his term of appointment. Such proposal was accepted and 3rd respondent was re-employed for a period of one year from 1st July 1996. Subsequently, term has been extended. It was done at the request of Vice Chairman. He clearly indicated that period of extension was to be co-terminus with his term of office and appointment. Request was again accepted. According to appellant, practice was to give promotion to seniormost Personal Assistant and to appoint him as Personal Secretary of Vice Chairman. Though re-appointment has been done giving it the colour of temporary appointment, yet it is, in effect, a permanent post. Reference in this contest is made to the letter of Secretary of the Board to Commissioner for Economic Development and Planning vide Ext. P-6 to the effect that post of Vice Chairman was a permanent one and the post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chairman had become permanent in view of G.O. (P) No. 465/78/Fin., dated 20th May 1978 (Ext. P-3). ln Clause.2 (i), it has been stated as follows:

"The posts which have been continuously in cxistence for snore than five years will be treated as permanent on the date of completion of five years without any farther orders of confirmation by Heads of Departments except in the case of temporary posts created for specific purposes."

4. In counter affidavit filed by respondents 1. and 2, it has been clearly indicated that the post is not a permanent one. Reference is made to appointment order (Ext, P-8 to Original Petition). In Ext. R-l (a), it has been stated that post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chairman need not be included in the list of posts to be made permanent. It has also been stated that post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chairman was not an addition to the cadre of employees in the Board. No special rules exist for the post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chairman. It is also stated that according to R.4 (g) of Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation, 1957 (in short, the Regulation), re-employment after retirement is outside the purview of Public Service Commission. In 1996, post of a Higher Grade Personal Assistant in the scale of Rs. 2375-3500 was created as temporary addition to the cadre of Personal Assistant in the Board. Appellant being the scniormost lower grade Personal Assistant in the Board was promoted to that post. Post of Personal Secretary was not an addition to the cadre and Vice Chairman had the option to select a Personal Secretary of his choice. Post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chairman was created not as a regular post, but as a temporary one. Personal Secretary was contemplated as personal staff of Vice Chairman and accordingly, post was created. In the absence of special rules, proposal to appoint third respondent on temporary basis was accepted pending framing of special rules for the post.

5. Is is fairly accepted by counsel for appellant that post of Personal Secretary is not an avenue for promotion so fa