IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Jaseena C.K., W/o. Kamarudheen & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, rep. by its Secretary, General Education Department & Ors. - Respondents
O.P.(KAT) Nos. 260 and 352 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Post of HSA - Petitioners are candidates included in rank list for post of High School Assistant (Hindi) in Education Department, Palakkad District which was finalised by respondent PSC and expired, after running maximum three year validity period - Whether court can be approached to compel an appointing authority to fill up vacancies from a rank list prepared by PSC - Candidate included in a direct recruitment rank list has no indefeasible right to be appointed even in vacancy that exists under State Authorities. (Para 11)
Finding of the Court :
Court have referred decisions only to underscore jurisprudential basis of reasonings of those judgments, which is that, right to equal opportunity for public employment, guaranteed to candidates to get qualified, subsequent to issuance of a selection notification, flows from Arts.14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
Result : Original petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Alexander Thomas, J.
These Original Petitions are directed against the impugned common order rendered on 22.03.2022 in O.A. (Ekm) Nos.954 of 2020 and 1732 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
2. The sole petitioner in the first O.P. is the applicant no.2 in that O.A. and the sole petitioner in the latter O.P. is the applicant no.2 in the corresponding O.A.
3. Heard Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel instructed by Smt. Aparna Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents in these cases and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Public Service Commission.
4. The petitioners herein are candidates included in the rank list for the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) in the Education Department, Palakkad District (Category No.662/2012), which was finalised by the respondent PSC on 12.07.2017 and expired on 11.07.2020, after running the maximum three year validity period. The main pleas in these O.As. are for directions to ensure the reporting of all existing substantive vacancies in the post of HSA in the Education Department, Palakkad District, before the expiry of the rank list so that advise and appointments can be made from the rank list dated 12.07.2017. It is the specific case of the petitioners that before the expiry of the rank list on 11.7.2020, the Tribunal had issued two interim orders directing the Deputy Director of Education concerned, Palakkad, to report if it is provisionally altogether 26 vacancies in the post of HSA (Hindi), Palakkad District, so as to reach the office of the respondent PSC well before the expiry of the rank list on 11.07.2020. It appears to be a common ground that the appointing authority has provisionally reported altogether 26 vacancies, HSA, which had reached the office of the PSC before the expiry of the rank list on 11.7.2020. The main pleas put up by the petitioners herein both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court are that altogether 19 vacancies were available, before the expiry of the rank list, in which, 60 vacancies were reported to the PSC and advises have been confined only to such 60 vacancies. Further that, the total number of vacancies that has arisen during the currency of the above said rank list in the post of HSA (Hindi) is 79 and that therefore atleast 19 more vacancies, viz., total 79 vacancies -60 advises = 19 vacancies, are still available for advice and appointment and that these 19 vacancies are substantive vacancies, which can be adjusted as against the 26 provisionally reported vacancies and that the Tribunal may order that the respondent PSC may make advice of candidates included in the above said rank list, as against atleast those 19 vacancies which may be adjusted as against the 26 provisionally reported vacancies. The main case put up by the petitioners is on the basis of a statement filed by them in O.A.(Ekm)No.1732 of 2018, which has been produced as Ext.P8 in O.P.(KAT)No.260/2022 (see pages 86 to 105 of that O.P.). It is common ground that the various quotas fixed for various methods of appointment is direct recruitment - 50%, interdistrict transfer - 25%, by promotion to the post of HSA from the feeder category of primary teacher -15% and by transfer appointment from qualified low paid employees - 10%. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that in the executive orders prescribing the method of appointment, it has been made clear that in case qualified candidates are not available in the other methods of appointment, then resort can be made to direct recruitment.
5. The details of the factual case set up by the petitioners, as made out in the above referred Ext.P8 produced in O.P. (KAT)No.260/2022, are given in internal pages 5 to 7 of
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others
Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others
Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheejamol
Sonia Alex & Others v. State of Kerala & Ors.
High Court of Kerala v. Reshma A.
Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi
Anurag Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85
Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat
State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986
Point of Law : Recruitment over and above notified vacancies is not in accordance with constitutional mandate of equal opportunity of unemployment, envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of equal opportunity for public employment and the interpretation of selection rules in the context of ongoing and continuous re....
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot alter findings of lower tribunals without clear manifest errors, particularly regarding vacancy reporting tied to expired lists.
Filling vacancies beyond those advertised violates constitutional rights, and waiting lists cannot serve as a reservoir for future appointments.
State or any public agency, cannot be precluded from challenging a judgment on the ground that it approaches this court, filing an appeal against only one party – Even if in that case, normative basi....
The court reinforced that candidates cannot compel filling vacancies from expired ranked lists, affirming appointing authorities' discretion over vacancy reporting under government policy.
Rule 7 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules permits appointments from the merit list approved by the Governor for one year, covering existing and anticipated vacancies, aligning with Supreme Court gu....
The decision not to recruit new personnel until an extensive restructuring is done was found to be non-arbitrary and reasonable.
Candidates do not possess an indefeasible right to be appointed from a ranked list unless state authorities' actions are found arbitrary or unreasonable.
Important points:Daily wage persons and provisional persons are being engaged by the respondent-Department of Social Justice, as drivers to cater to their travel requirements and that the said practi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.