IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
Shiji M.k, W/o Ramkumar – Appellant
Versus
Director Of General Education – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.)
The petitioners were the applicants before the Tribunal. They were included in the ranked list for the post of High School Assistant (Malayalam) in Kozhikode District. The ranked list came into force on 09/08/2017 and expired on 08/08/2020. The grievance of the petitioners was that the actual number of vacancies was not disclosed by the Department and therefore, advice should be made in respect of all vacancies that were in existence during the currency of the ranked list.
2. It is to be noted that on the basis of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 30/06/2021 and 04/08/2020, 40 vacancies were reported to the PSC. The Tribunal taking note of the above, directed the Director of General Education to report, whether any such vacancy existed, in the prescribed format, after giving the opportunity of hearing to the applicants, within a period of three months. This order was passed on 05/03/2024. This Court, by an interim order, dated 29/07/2024, directed the Department to carry out the exercise to find out the number of vacancies that exist; which was being reiterated; and finally, pursuant to the direction issued on 09/01/2025, a statement has
The Tribunal or Court cannot ascertain vacancies as a primary authority unless there is evidence of wilful omission or arbitrary action.
Vacancies arising during the extended validity of a ranked list must be advised, regardless of their reporting date, as long as they arose before the list's final expiry.
NJD vacancies arising after the expiry of a ranked list cannot be filled using the expired list.
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 ....
Inconsistent reporting by the Department regarding job vacancies undermines fair appointment procedures, warranting judicial intervention and a re-evaluation of the original application.
Candidates included in a rank list have no indefeasible right to be appointed, and the state is not obligated to fill all vacancies. Candidates cannot claim a right to vacancies that are not reported....
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot alter findings of lower tribunals without clear manifest errors, particularly regarding vacancy reporting tied to expired lists.
The court reinforced that candidates cannot compel filling vacancies from expired ranked lists, affirming appointing authorities' discretion over vacancy reporting under government policy.
Direct recruitment candidates can only be appointed to vacancies that exist at the time of advising, emphasizing the importance of adherence to recruitment quotas and vacancy reporting.
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.