IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Shalu Varghese S/o M.M. Varghese – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
O.P. (KAT) No. 195 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
VACANCIES - Legal Assistant Grade II - Annexure A2 rank-list, GO(MS) No. 82/2016/Law - The court discussed the determination of cadre strength, reporting of vacancies, and the validity of the rank-list. The legal provisions of equal opportunity for public employment and the interpretation of selection rules were central to the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to direct the notification and filling of vacancies for the post of Legal Assistant Grade II in the Law Department, Government of Kerala. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, stating that all substantive vacancies had been duly advised by the appointing authority to the Public Service Commission (PSC) during the currency of the rank-list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cadre strength of the post of Legal Assistant Grade II was determined by the State Government, and 93 advices had already been made by the PSC. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the ongoing and continuous process of recruitment to public services.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of cadre strength, reporting of vacancies, and the validity of the rank-list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles of equal opportunity for public employment and the interpretation of selection rules, as well as the ongoing and continuous process of recruitment to public services.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The afore captioned Original Petition instituted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned Ext.P21 final order rendered on 18.05.2022 by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA (Ekm) No. 1268/2020. The petitioners herein are the applicants are the applicants in the OA and the respondents herein are the respondents in the OA.
2. Heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel instructed and assisted by Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvila, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, Sri. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 & 2 herein and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for R3 herein.
3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, OA (Ekm) No. 1268/2020 filed by the petitioners herein before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are as follows:
(ii) Direct the 3rd respondent to fill the vacancies that arose in the post of Legal Assistant (Grade II) in the Law Department (Government Secretariat), Government of Kerala during the years 2016-2017 from Annexure A2 rank-list.
(iii) To direct the 3rd respondents to extend the validity of Annexure A2 rank-list in view of the COVID 19 pandemic.
(iv) To direct the 3rd respondent to make appointments to the vacant posts of Legal Assistant (Grade II) in the Law Department (Government Secretariat), Government of Kerala within a time limit to be fixed by this Tribunal.
(v) Direct the respondents to treat the vacancies that may arise in 2021, 2022, 2023 as anticipated vacancies and fill the same from Annexure A2 rank-list.
(vi) Issue such other directions or orders as this Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P10 final verdict, dismissing the OA, on the ground that the factual case of the applicant that there exists more vacancies than those that have already been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC, is factually not correct and that 93 advises have already been made from Annexure A2 rank-list dated 25.09.2017, which has expired on 24.09.2020 and that all substantive vacancies reported by the appointing authority to the PSC during the currency of the rank-list has already been duly advised. Hence, the Original Petition has been dismissed.
5. We have heard both sides in extenso and have considered the rival pleadings and materials on record. In the instant case, the petitioners claim to be candidates who have responded to Annexure A1 selection notification dated 19.06.2013 issued by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission for selection and appointment to the post of Legal Assistant Grade II, Law Department, Government of Kerala. According to the petitioners, they have participated in the selection process and have been included in Annexure A2 rank-list dated 25.09.2017 finalized by the respondent Public Service Commission, which has expired on 24.09.2020. Further that the present OA had been filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal on 20.08.2020. Further, as per the interim prayer made by the petitioners, the Tribunal has passed interim order dated 18.09.2020, directing the respondent State Government to provisionally report 60 vacancies of Legal Assistant Grade II to the respondent PSC before the expiry of the rank-list on 24.09.2020. It appears to be common ground that the respondent State Government has provisionally reported 60 such vacancies in the post of Legal Assistant Grade II, to the respondent PSC, and the said provisional requisition has reached the Office of the PSC
Anurag Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashok Kumar vs. Banking Service Recruitment Board
Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. vs. State of Gujarat
High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. (2021) 3 SCC 755
Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
Prem Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board
Rahul Dutta vs. State of Bihar
Rakhi Ray vs. High Court of Delhi
Soniya Alex and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others
State of Bihar vs. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986
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....
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 ....
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that filling up vacancies beyond the specified number in the notification was not illegal, as per Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission R....
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot alter findings of lower tribunals without clear manifest errors, particularly regarding vacancy reporting tied to expired lists.
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....
Candidates do not possess an indefeasible right to be appointed from a ranked list unless state authorities' actions are found arbitrary or unreasonable.
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.