Inclusion in a ranked list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; policy decisions regarding the creation and abolition of posts are within the government’s discretion unless proven arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners, being aggrieved by the denial of appointments to them, by the 1^st respondent as Office Attendants, despite the fact that, they were included in the ranked list published in this regard. It is also their grievance that, without giving them appointment, now a fresh selection process is notified for the said post. (WP(C)No. 23548/2024 is treated as the leading case and the Exhibits and the parties will be hereinafter referred to in this judgment as per the description and sequence thereof in the said writ petition)

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The 2^nd respondent published Ext.P1 notification dated 19.12.2019, inviting applications to the post of Office Attendant in the High Court of Kerala. The vacancies notified in Ext.P1 were 24 in numbers, but it was also mentioned therein that, the vacancies that may arise during the period of validity of the ranked list shall also be filled up from the list. It was also provided that, the said ranked list shall remain in force for a minimum period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force and shall continue to remain in force until the publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of two years, whichever is earlier.

3. The petitioners have submitted applications in response to Ext.P1 and participated in the selection process. Thereafter, Ext.P2 ranked list was published by the 2^nd respondent, wherein, all the petitioners were included. During the validity of Ext.P2 ranked list, the 2^nd respondent issued appointment orders on 11.8.2022, 18.10.2022, 3.1.2023, 21.2.2023, 5.4.2023, 29.5.2023, 3.8.2023, 5.1.2024, 27.2.2024, 20.4.2024, 24.5.2024 and 15.6.2024 by appointing 332 candidates from Ext.P2 rank list. The total sanctioned post were 345 in the cadre. During the subsistence of the Ext.P2 ranked list, 34 vacancies of Office Attendants which had arisen between 4.3.2023 and 4.1.2024, were not filled up. It is averred that, on seeking information from respondents 1 and 2, it was conveyed that, 34 posts of O.As. as referred to above were proposed to be abolished as per the decision taken by the 1^st respondent and a further decision was taken to create 18 new posts in various other categories in the High Court establishment. The said proposal was submitted before the Government and the approval of the Government was awaiting. The said posts were not filled up by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. Subsequently, as per Ext.P7 Government Order dated 21.6.2024,the proposal made by the 1^st respondent was accepted by the Government, thereby, 34 posts of O.As., were abolished and instead, 18 new posts, including that of additional Protocol Officer, Section Officer/Court Officer, Personal Assistant Grade- II, Confidential Assistant Grade-II and Cook, were created. In the meantime, the Ext.P2 ranked list expired on 16.6.2024. Even before the expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list, the 2^nd respondent issued a further notification, which is produced as Ext.P6 dated 30.5.2024, inviting applications to the posts of Office Attendant. In Ext.P6, it was sought to fill up 34 numbers of anticipated vacancies. According to the petitioners, the non filling up of 34 vacancies, which were in existence during the subsistence of Ext.P2 ranked list and inviting application for filling up of 34 vacancies on the verge of expiry of the term of Ext.P2 ranked list, are