IMPORTANT POINT
Filling vacancies beyond those advertised violates constitutional rights, and waiting lists cannot serve as a reservoir for future appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench following a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court. Before addressing the specific facts of the case, it is important to highlight the key questions that arise.

a) Can the authorities that initiate processes for public employment legitimately fill more vacancies than initially advertised? If so, does this not constitute a violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Indian Constitution, effectively denying the rights of those who did not apply? Furthermore, does this not unfairly disadvantage individuals who became eligible after the application deadline but were unable to apply because the vacancies were not advertised for them?

b) Does a candidate on a waiting list possess the right to be appointed to vacancies that were not notified or available when the original select list was prepared? Can a waiting list be utilized as a reservoir to fill vacancies that arise after the advertisement is issued, thereby allowing candidates from the list to be selected as needed?

c) Under what circumstances can the rule against recruiting candidates beyond the notified vacancies be relaxed? If such relaxation is to be considered, what are the critical factors that must be taken into account?

These issues strike at the very heart of the principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law in the domain of public employment.

2. Now to the brief facts.

a) The Guruvayur Devaswom runs a High School comprising an Upper Primary Section. The Administrator of the Devaswom is the Manager of the School. Two vacancies of Upper Primary School Teachers arose in the school on 18.6.2018 and 19.7.2019 respectively. Steps were taken by the Managing Committee of the Devaswom to fill up the said vacancies by issuing Ext.P1 notification on 16.10.2019. Ext.P2 select list was accepted by the Managing Committee on 31.12.2019 as per Ext.P3 resolution for filling up the notified vacancies alone. Pursuant to the said decision, the candidates ranked 1 and 2 in the select list were appointed against the notified vacancies.

b) While so, on 14.12.2019, the Headmistress of the School issued Ext.R2(a) letter requesting the Administrator to keep the select list in operation so as to fill up the future vacancies from the said list with a view to ensure that there is no disruption of classes for want of teachers. Based on the above request, the Managing Committee passed Ext.P4 resolution on 16.1.2020 deciding to extend the life of Ext.P2 select list by one year and to make appointments from the said list against future vacancies as well. Later, on 03.06.2020, the Headmistress of the school reported to the Manager that a vacancy arose in the Upper Primary Section of the school on account of the retirement of a teacher. It was also pointed out that three teachers in the Upper Primary Section are entitled to be promoted to the Higher Sections of the School and if the said promotions are effected at the appropriate time, four teachers may have to be appointed in the Upper Primary Section. Ext.P5 report was submitted by the Headmistress stating these aspects. The report was accepted and the Manager issued Exhibit P6 order appointing the candidates who were ranked 3 to 5 in Ext.P2 select list.

c) Even before the selected candidates joined duty, the Managing Committee by Ext.P10 resolution dated 15.6.2020, resolved to revoke their appointment as according to the Committee, the appointments of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies were made without their knowledge and permission. It was also mentioned that when appointments were made, there was only one vacancy as steps were not taken to effect the promotion of the existing teachers to the Higher Sections of the school. Pursuant to Ext.P10 resolution, Ext.P9 consequential order was issued by the Manager revoking the appointment.

3. Separate writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge challenging the cancellation of appointme