Back
2019 Supreme(Ker) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. CHITAMBARESH, R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.
DEEPA C. DAS - Appellant
Versus
DEEPA M.M., W/O. SUDHI P.P. and Ors - Respondent
WA. No. 676, 779, 1340 of 2018
Decided on : 04-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.George Poonthottam (Sr.) Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt.Aparna Rajan Sri.C.S.Dias, Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay Smt.K.N.Remya Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas Advs. Smt.L.Annapoorna Smt.N.Santha Sri.K.A.Balan Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan (Sr.) Sri.Peter Jose Christo Sri.P.Ravindran (Sr.) Sri.S.A.Anand Sri.Sreedhar Ravindran Sri.V.Varghese.
Important Point
" The powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution cannot be exercised by the Chief Justice in an unfettered and arbitrary manner. Appointments should be made giving adherence to the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution and/or such Rules as made by the legislature.
" The decision of the Chief Justice in administrative matters can be challenged only when it is shown that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the provisions of law or when it is shown that it is vitiated by mala fides- In order to enable a judicial intervention, it would require a very strong and convincing argument to show that the power has been abused.
Headnote:The Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007- The Constitution of India- Article 229(2)
Facts of the case:
The High Court of Kerala published notification dated 14.08.2013, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Cataloguer by direct recruitment- The existing vacancy notified was only one-The rank list prepared shall remain in force for a minimum period of two years from the date on which it is brought into force and shall continue to remain in force until the publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier- The Kerala High Court Service Rules, provide that appointment to the post of Cataloguer shall be by promotion from the category of Senior Grade Library Assistant, by transfer or direct recruitment-A degree of a University and a degree or diploma in Library Science are the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Cataloguer in the Kerala High Court Service-On the date of publication of Ext.P1 notification, there was no person in the High Court Service who was eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Cataloguer by promotion or by transfer-The writ petitioner, who is working as Computer Assistant Grade-II in the High Court and who was already a graduate, obtained Bachelor`s Degree in Library and Information Science-She made representation dated 06.10.2015 to the High Court for appointing her to the post of Cataloguer by transfer-The High Court rejected Ext.P3 representation-The High Court rejected the request made by the writ petitioner for review of Ext.P4 order.
Has an appointing authority, in the absence of any specific rule providing for ratio or quota or percentage to be maintained with regard to stream of selection to a post, the discretion to resort to any of the multiple methods of recruitment prescribed?
" Cataloguers form the foundation of a library. Accessibility to information is made quick and easy by the systematic organisation of data by them. The controversy in the case pertains to selection to the post of Cataloguer in the Kerala High Court Service.
Finding of the Court:
Mere selection does not give any right to the selected candidate to be appointed-He has a right to be considered for appointment- The appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims and fancies- When a person is selected and included in the rank list and if there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment-There has to be a justifiable reason to decline appointment to a person who is in the select list
Result : Writ petition dismissed
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
1. Has an appointing authority, in the absence of any specific rule providing for ratio or quota or percentage to be maintained with regard to stream of selection to a post, the discretion to resort to any of the multiple methods of recruitment prescribed?
2. Cataloguers form the foundation of a library. Accessibility to information is made quick and easy by the systematic organisation of data by them. The controversy in the case pertains to selection to the post of Cataloguer in the Kerala High Court Service.
3. The High Court of Kerala published Ext.P1 notification dated 14.08.2013, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Cataloguer by direct recruitment. The existing vacancy notified was only one. But, it was provided in the notification that the rank list prepared shall remain in force for a minimum period of two years from the date on which it is brought into force and shall continue to remain in force until the publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. It was also provided that vacancies that may arise during the period of validity of the rank list shall also be filled up from the list. After selection process, the High Court published Ext.P2 rank list dated 15.11.2014.
4. The Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provide that appointment to the post of Cataloguer shall be by promotion from the category of Senior Grade Library Assistant, by transfer or direct recruitment. A degree of a University and a degree or diploma in Library Science are the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Cataloguer in the Kerala High Court Service. On the date of publication of Ext.P1 notification, there was no person in the High Court Service who was eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Cataloguer by promotion or by transfer.
5. The first person in Ext.P2 rank list did not join duty. Therefore, the second person in the rank list was appointed to the vacancy which was existing and notified. The next vacancy arose on 09.10.2015. Meanwhile, the writ petitioner, who is working as Computer Assistant Grade-II in the High Court and who was already a graduate, obtained Bachelor's Degree in Library and Information Science. She made Ext.P3 representation dated 06.10.2015 to the High Court for appointing her to the post of Cataloguer by transfer. As per Ext.P4 official memorandum dated 16.07.2016, the High Court rejected Ext.P3 representation. As per Ext.P5 order dated 18.07.2016, the High Court appointed the third respondent in the writ petition, whose name was in the rank list, in the existing vacancy. The writ petitioner made Ext.P6 representation dated 30.07.2016 to the High Court for reviewing the order rejecting Ext.P3 representation. As per Ext.P7 official memorandum dated 19.09.2016, the High Court rejected the request made by the writ petitioner for review of Ext.P4 order.
6. As per Ext.P8 official memorandum dated 22.05.2017, the High Court invited willingness, from qualified persons in the High Court Service, for appointment by transfer to the post of Cataloguer. As per Ext.P9 submission dated 29.05.2017, the writ petitioner expressed her willingness to be appointed to the post of Cataloguer by transfer. However, as per Ext.P10 official memorandum dated 03.07.2017, she was informed that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice had ordered to modify the earlier order for filling up the then existing vacancy by appointment by transfer.
7. The writ petition was filed on 01.08.2017. The main reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are to quash Ext.P10 and to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of Cataloguer in the vacancy to which the third respondent was appointed as per Ext.P5 order.
8. While the writ petition was pending, as per Ext.R2(5) order dated 24.08.2017, the High Court appointed another person from the rank list to the post of Cataloguer, in the vacancy which arose by sanctioning of
