SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
Sasi Kumar. C, - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary, Education (General) And Ors. – Respondents
OP(KAT) NO. 334 OF 2025
Decided On : 22-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt.A.Aruna, Smt.Jisha Shaji, Smt.P.V.Uttara
For the Respondent: Shri.P.C.Sasidharan, SC

Inconsistent reporting by the Department regarding job vacancies undermines fair appointment procedures, warranting judicial intervention and a re-evaluation of the original application.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Jurisdiction of High Court - The court intervened in the Tribunal's dismissal of the original application regarding the reporting of vacancies for High School Assistant (Social Science) due to inconsistencies in reporting by the Department. (Para 14)

(B) Employment Law - Vacancy Reporting - The Tribunal failed to address contradictions in reply statements regarding the availability of vacancies for appointment from the ranked list, leading to an erroneous conclusion. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, challenged the Tribunal's dismissal regarding the reporting of substantive vacancies for the post of High School Assistant (Social Science). The petitioner contended that the cadre strength had discrepancies and that vacancies were not reported by the Department despite being available. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The judgments and procedures of the Tribunal were flawed due to overlooked contradictions in the respondent's reporting of vacancies, necessitating a reevaluation of the original application. (Para 14)

Issues: The main issues addressed the accuracy of the vacancy reporting and the responsibilities of the Department to report the actual cadre strength.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal did not appropriately consider the contradictions in the Department's reports about vacancies and lacked a thorough examination of the facts presented. (Paras 14)

Result: Original petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and the Tribunal directed to reconsider the matter.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges tribunal order regarding vacancies. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner requests reporting and filling of vacancies. (Para 3 , 4)
3. tribunal’s interim orders on vacancy reporting. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court directs reconsideration of the case. (Para 7 , 15)
5. contradictions in responses highlight merit concerns. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This original petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.2290 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘the Tribunal’ for short), by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman who suffered 30%disability while on duty. He belongs to Hindu Nadar Community. The petitioner was rank No.7 in Annexure A1 ranked list dated 04.03.2021 for the selection of High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium in Idukki District, published by the 3rd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ in short). Soon after the publication of Annexure A1 ranked list, O.A.No.805 of 2021 was filed before the Tribunal, which was finally ended in dismissal on 15.09.2023. The petitioner alleges that due to the pendency of the said original application, the Department was not keen on calculating and reporting the vacancies, and the vacancies arose then and there were managed by engaging temporary hands/guest teachers. After constant efforts, the petitioner got information that though the cadre strength is 25, only 18 teachers were appointed through KPSC, and out of which, many have obtained interdistrict/interdepartmental transfer, deputation and promotion, etc. The 2nd respondent is duty-bound to report at least 7 existing vacancies and remaining also after finding out the dearth. The petitioner states that even after the dismissal of O.A.No.805 of 2021, all vacancies in the 23 Schools, in which the post of High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium are sanctioned, were not reported to the KPSC. According to the petitioner, although there are only 23 Schools, the cadre strength of the High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium is 25, as two Schools, namely GVHS, Munnar, and PHSS, Vandipperiyar, have two posts each.

2.1. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent has taken a wrong stand that the cadre strength is 23 and the vacancies available in the Department amount to 6, of which 3 are already reported to KPSC, but not advised due to non- availability of candidates in the respective turns. As per Annexure A3 letter dated 24.07.2023 received from the 2nd respondent, one of the three remaining vacancies has been reported to the KPSC, and one is set apart for by transfer appointment. Decision is yet to be taken regarding the remaining one post, which arose from 01.04.2023 due to retirement of the incumbent. The petitioner contended that as there are no eligible candidates for by transfer appointment, the said vacancy also has to be reported for direct recruitment. Another incumbent, Sri.Thankaraj, is working on deputation, and the said vacancy is not reported so far. When the actual cadre strength is considered as 25, the total number of vacancies to be reported is 8. By producing Annexure A4 appointment chart, the petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the last vacancy reported was on 30.03.2023, i.e., four months before Annexure A3 reply and it can be presumed that the single vacancy referred in Annexure A4, which the 1st respondent claims to have reported as a single one out of the three kept separately from the batch of 6. From Annexure A4, it can be seen that the 5th rank holder, namely Elizabeth Rani L., in the main list of Annexure A1 ranked list is advised in MR1-OC, and 3 turns are pending over including MR1 Hindu Nadar (on 18.04.2023). So even in the worst-case s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top