The question to be considered in this case is whether the provisions contained in Rule 7(2) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) which provide that a rank list published for direct recruitment will continue to remain in force for a fixed period would enable the respondents to fill all the vacancies arising during currency of the ranked list by direct recruitment notwithstanding the method of appointment provided in the rules and the availability of candidates under the other methods of appointment provided in Rule 6(1) of the High Court Service Rules.

2. The petitioner is presently working as a Computer Assistant in this High Court. She commenced her service as a Peon in the High Court on 28.02.2005. She was appointed as Binder in the Library on 13.8.2012, on appointment by transfer. On 29.10.2014, she was appointed as Typist Copyist Grade II and thereafter as Computer Assistant on 06.07.2015. She is a graduate in Economics with Typewriting (Lower and Higher) (English) with Computer word Processing, and KGTE Book Binding (Lower). She acquired Degree in Library and Information Science in the year 2014 and became fully qualified for appointment as Cataloguer.

3. The qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Cataloguer in the High Court are: “1. University Degree and 2. A Degree or diploma in Library Science”. The method of appointment to the post of Cataloguer as provided in Rule 6(1) read with Column (3) of Annexure I is as follows:

“Promotion from Senior Grade Library Assistant, appointment by transfer or direct recruitment”.

4. One vacancy of Cataloguer arose in the High Court in the year 2013. Since there was no qualified hand for appointment by promotion or for appointment by transfer, Ext.P1 notification was issued inviting application for direct recruitment on 14.8.2013. While notifying one vacancy of Cataloguer, it was also notified that vacancies that may arise during the period of validity of rank list shall also be filled up from the list. It was also provided that rank list shall remain in force for a minimum period of two years and shall continue to remain in force until the publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. Pursuant to that Ext.P2 rank list was published on 15.11.2014. From this rank list rank No.2 was appointed, since rank No.1 did not join duty.

5. When the petitioner acquired Degree in Library and Information Science, she submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 06.10.2015, requesting for appointment against that vacancy, pointing out that she acquired all the qualifications for appointment as Cataloguer, by transfer, in 2014 itself. Pointing out the method of appointment provided in the rules, she requested respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the vacancy by way of appointment by transfer. But the request was rejected along with that of one Smt. Jasmin, as per Ext. P4 Office Memorandum, stating that a rank list for direct recruitment is available, which is valid for a minimum period of two years as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules and that the Honourable Acting Chief Justice has ordered to reject the representations. She submitted another representation Ext.P6 which was also rejected as per Ext.P7 OM. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P4 and P7 letters of rejection and challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent.

6. During the pendency of the writ petition Ext.P8 office memorandum was issued on 22.5.2017 calling for willingness from approved probationers having Degree or Diploma in Library Science, working in categories having same scale of pay or lower scale of pay than that of Cataloguer on or before 31.5.2017. Pursuant to Ext.P8 notification the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 willingness on 29.5.2017. However by Ext.P10 official memorandum Ext.P8 OM was withdrawn. By Ext.P10 three candidates including the petitioner who had submitted willingness were informed that the appointment is