IMPORTANT POINTS
As per Article 320(3), the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; (c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters.

JUDGMENT :

The Kerala Civil Judicial Staff Organisation along with 7 of its members, has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the deletion of Clause (viii) from Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Judicial Subordinate Service Rules, 1991 (“the Special Rules” for short), by way of Ext.P2 amendment Rules, 2018 published on 19.01.2019, as a result of which the employees of Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service, along with members of certain other categories became ineligible for appointment by transfer to the post of Munsiff Magistrate. They are also aggrieved by Ext.P16 notification issued by the High Court for appointment of Munsiff-Magistrates.

2. Petitioners 2 to 8 are law graduates with more than 10 years service in Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service. Prior to Ext.P2 amendment employees in the Kerala Judicial Ministerial subordinate Service Rule with 10 years minimum service with graduation in law were eligible to apply for selection for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. The petitioners point out that the Government had in Ext.P8 letter of 04.09.2018, rejected the proposal of the High Court for deletion of their category (viii) pointing out that the same would bring down the opportunities of several employees to get promotion. It is stated that the Chief Minister had in the file note ordered to retain clause (viii) in Rule 5(3). Referring to the correspondence between the High Court and the Government and the file notes Exts.P3 to P12 for the period from 19.12.2015, the petitioners alleged that they are deprived of their vested rights on account of the hostile and prejudicial action of the High Court and also on account of the opinion given by the Law Secretary, who was also an officer subordinate to respondents 4 and 5. It is alleged that the action of the rule making authority was arbitrary and discriminatory and that the amendment was carried out in haste, without any independent appreciation of facts by the Council of Ministers and without considering the grievance of the affected employees. According to the petitioners, the rule making power of Governor is not independent; but he is bound by the advice of Council of Ministers; there is no basis for the statement in Ext.P10 letter of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice that their appointment would lower the dignity of the post. According to them, many of those working in judicial service and in higher cadres were appointed from the Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service and they had been working without any complaints upholding the dignity of the post. It is stated that they are not inferior to the categories mentioned in clauses (i) to (vii) of Rule 5(3). It is alleged that in view of the opinion of the Law Secretary that the Government has no role in the framing of or amendment of Special Rules for Judicial Service, the Council of Ministers approved the proposal on 13.12.2018 without any further discussion and placed it before the Governor of Kerala on 28.12.2018 and the amendment notification was issued thereafter. The petitioners have produced the file notes alleging that the amendment has been brought about contrary to their interest, without any consultation with the service organizations as prescribed in Ext.P14 circular dated 19.07.2010 for issuing Special Rules. It is also stated that Ext.P15 representation submitted by the petitioner association did not evoke any response.

3. Immediately after the amendment rules were published, the High Court issued recruitment notification dated 01.02.2019 inviting applications for appointment against 37 (probable) vacancies of Munsiff-Magistrates, 25% of which were earmarked for appointment by transfer from among the categories under Rule 5(3). The Writ Petition was filed in the above circumstances.

4. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a statement explaining the procedure followed for the amendment right from the proposal made in 2015. It is stated that a special committee of 3 Judges, constituted for making suggestio