The court affirmed that the expiration of a rank list does not negate the right to appointment when vacancies exist, emphasizing the binding nature of prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the respondent University in compliance with the direction in Ext. P13 judgment.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that by Notification No.GA/K1/21606/07 dated 24.09.2007, the University invited applications for appointments to the post of various disciplines. That Notification was later modified by notification dated 09.10.2007 and 15.11.2007 by the University. Due to some technical issues and consequent litigations, finally Ext.P1 rank list was published. Petitioner was included as Serial No.9. The rank list was for the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline Horticulture under the faculty of Agriculture. At that point of time, three vacancies were available. However, in the Notification itself it was clarified that the same will be subject to variation. The rank list came into force on 30.07.2009, which was valid for two years and expired on 29.07.2011.

3. According to the petitioner, 7 persons were appointed from Ext.P1. The Executive Committee of the University on 17.04.2010 resolved to fill up the vacancies of Associate Professors and Professors. At that point of time, one Associate Professor, namely Smt. Premalatha T and five Professors who belonged to non-plan posts were engaged in the posts under Krishi Vigyan Kendra (for short ‘KVK’) and External Aided Project (for short ‘EAP’). They are not entitled to hold those posts. If those faculties were shifted to their original posts, the petitioner would have been appointed. Under such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred WP(C) No.9379/2011 for filling up all the vacancies of Assistant Professor (Horticulture).

4. In compliance with the interim direction dated 26.05.2011, the University issued Ext.P4 order whereby it is ordered that no vacancies exist in the discipline of Horticulture. There were only three Leave Without Allowance (for short ‘LWA’) vacancies as per the then existing rules. The University was not in a position to fill up the vacancies due to LWA. The petitioner targeted the vacancies occupied by other persons not selected for the KVK or EAP. It was not controverted by the University. The petitioner has specifically pointed out in the writ petition the persons who are working in the EAPs. It is further stated that though sufficient vacancies were available in non-plan posts as evident in Exts.P5 to P9, they were accommodated against plan posts. Apparently, the writ petition was disposed on 31.07.2013, vide Ext.P13 judgment, by which this Court specifically found that there were 11 vacancies available in the faculty of Horticulture. The rank list expired on 29.05.2011. Therefore, the court presumed that those vacancies were available prior to 30.05.2011. It was also observed that due to the pendency of litigations appointments were not affected by the University. Accordingly, a direction was issued to appoint the petitioners in the respective field of their choice in the post of Assistant Professors provided; vacancy had arisen during the validity of the rank list within the stipulated time.

5. In compliance with the said direction, the University issued Ext.P14, which declared that no vacancies were available in the cadre of Assistant Professors in the discipline of Horticulture. Petitioner states, that was against the facts. The petitioner substantiates the said factum with Exts.P15 to P17 documents received under the Right to Information Act. Against the said order, the above writ petition is preferred.

6. Despite the findings in Ext.P13 judgment, with respect to 11 vacancies available before 29.05.2011(date of expiry of rank list), the University denied the appointment by Ext.P14. The University has not challenged the findings in Ext.P13 judgment with respect to the availability of vacancies. Thereby, they cann