Candidates in a recruitment process lack the locus standi to challenge service promotions occurring before their inclusion in a rank list, as inclusion in a list confers no indefeasible right to appointment, and challenges must be grounded in an existing legal interest in the subject matter.

Judgment :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Even though this appeal impels various assertions, averments and allegations, the germane question is whether the appellants obtain locus standi to challenge the promotion of the party respondents.

2. The controversy has its genesis in the fact that the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited (Corporation for short), reported 11 vacancies in the post of “Accountant/Senior Assistant” to the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), for being filled through direct recruitment. This was done because, at the time when the said vacancies arose, there were no qualified hands available for promotion.

3. Admittedly, as per the Special Rules applicable to the post in question, the normal method of filling up the vacancies is through promotion; and it is only where the qualified hands are not available on the date of occurrence of the same, can direct recruitment be resorted to.

4. As is expressly conceded, at the time when Ext.P2 notification was issued by the Public Service Commission, only 11 vacancies were reported; and it is admitted that they were all filled up from persons like the appellants, included in Ext.P3 Rank List prepared pursuant thereto.

5. However, the appellants took a contention that, after Ext.P2 notification had been issued, several vacancies arose and that even then there were no qualified persons. They say that, however, instead of reporting such vacancies to the Public Service Commission by the Corporation, the latter chose to wait until 12.06.2023, to promote the party respondents; and that this was done because, it is only then, that they obtained the necessary qualification.

6. The appellants contend that the action of the Corporation in having waited to obtain qualified persons to effect promotions in vacancies that arose prior to such, is in direct conflict with Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules; and assert that, had this not been done, such would have had to be reported to the PSC, to be then filled up from the persons included in Ext.P3 Rank List like, themselves.

7. It is rather obvious – also being admitted -that, at the time when the party respondents were promoted through Ext.P6 order dated 12.06.2023, Ext.P3 Rank List had not come into force because, its date is 11.01.2024. This Rank List was pursuant to Ext.P2 notification dated 15.03.2021, which specified the vacancies as being 11 – it being intended to fill up solely those vacancies to which qualified persons were not available.

8. Interestingly, the contention of the appellants is that they are entitled to have been considered for appointment even though the vacancies in question had arisen after Ext.P2 notification, because there were no qualified persons even thereafter; and that, had that been done, they would have obtained seniority higher than what they have now, because they now are placed under the party respondents who were promoted in the meanwhile.

9. Sri.Rajesh K.Raju – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that, when the Corporation had acted illegally in promoting persons to vacancies that arose prior to them having been qualified, such will have to be seen to be illegal and hence null and void. He contended, that if this Court is to hold so, then his clients would obtain higher seniority since the party respondents will have to be reverted to their original position.

10. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan and Sri.Brijesh Mohan – learned counsel for the party respondents, however, argued that the appellants obtain no locus to challenge either Ext.P6 order or the promotion offered to their clients. They as