The State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate; it must act reasonably and justify any decision not to appoint.

JUDGMENT :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Varghese, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms Jeona, learned Counsel representing Mr. P. C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Mr. K. V. Krishnakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents and Ms. Mary Beena Joseph, learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. The petitioners are before this Court since 2016 in three successive writ petitions in respect of not granting appointments to them on the post of Scientist B in Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘JNTBGRI’ for short) after they got selected.

3. The petitioners are working as Technical Officers Grade - V and IV, respectively, in the service of JNTBGRI. The JNTBGRI is working under the Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment, Thiruvananthapuram. The Chief Minister of the State is the president of the said Council. The Chief Secretary and the Vice Chairman of the State Planning Board are the Vice Presidents. The Secretary to Finance Department of the State is one of the members of the State Council.

4. The petitioners’ educational qualifications are M.Sc. and Ph. D. Degrees. The JNTBGRI issued the notification on 22.12.2010 inviting applications for various posts, including Scientist-C, Scientist-B, etc. The 2nd petitioner applied for the post of Scientist-B in pursuance to the notification in Exhibit P-1 dated 22.12.2010. However, the respondents did not make the selection for the posts advertised vide the notification dated 22.12.2010.

5. The 4th respondent, five years thereafter issued the notification dated 11.09.2015 inviting applications for appointment to various posts such as Scientist-B, C, E1 and Librarian. A corrigendum was issued on 27.09.2015. The internal as well as the candidates from the open market could have applied for the posts advertised vide the notification in Exhibit P-2 dated 11.09.2015. Vide the corrigendum dated 27.09.2015 in Exhibit P-2(a), age relaxation has been granted to the internal candidates up to 50 years, and educational qualification, i.e. M.Sc. was relaxed in respect of the internal candidates.

6. The petitioners applied in pursuance to the notification dated 11.09.2015, read with corrigendum dated 27.09.2015, for the post of Scientist-B. The qualification as per the Rules for the post of Scientist-B is Ph. D. (Science) or First-Class M. Tech/ME.

7. The petitioners were short-listed, and they faced the interview for the selection. The petitioners’ names were included in the select list published by the 4th respondent on 31.08.2016.

8. Despite the petitioners having secured their place in the select list, they were not appointed. The petitioners were informed that they were not being appointed as there was an interim order operating in W.P. (C) No. 30799 of 2015. It appears that the said interim order operating in W.P. (C) No. 30799 of 2015 was vacated on 11.07.2016. The Institution itself was deleted from the array of the parties, and therefore, the interim order operating in the said writ petition would not have any impact on filling up the posts of Scientist-B in the 4th respondent Institution, i.e. JNTBGRI.

9. In paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that the respondents had already made appointments to all other posts notified in Exhibit P-2 notification for which the selection was made by the same Interview Board. However, the petitioners were not appointed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, there is no denial to the said averment made in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition. After the 4th respondent Institution was deleted from the array of parties in W.P. (C) No. 30799 of 2015, there was no impediment to giving appointments to the petitioners on the post of Scientist-B. However, the 4th respondent issued a letter dated 23.09.2016 in Exhibit P-10 to the petitioners stating that W.P. (C) No. 30799 of