JUDGMENT

[ WP(C).16517/2010, WP(C).27006/2010, WP(C).27640/2010, WP(C).70/2011 ]

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021 The captioned writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. The grievance expressed in the writ petitions is that, despite having stood in the rank list dated 24.7.2010 in respect of the selection process notified by notification dated 21.6.1995 for filling up of the posts of LD Driver, the respondents have not taken any steps to fill up the remaining vacancies, but are indulging into appointment on daily wages as evidenced from Ext.P8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the information received under Right to Information Act, Exts.P6 and P7, there are a number of vacancies available, but respondents have not made any attempt to advise for filling up of the posts from the above rank list, the validity of which is still alive, in view of the interim order passed in the matter. Such a practice is wholly deprecated and takes away the available rights of the petitioners for appointment, despite having found eligible in the zone of consideration.

2. In support of the contentions, the ratio decidendi culled out in judgment rendered by this Court in Jyothish Kumar v. State of Kerala 1996 (2) KLT 444 and K.P.S.C Reserve Conductors Rank Holders Assn. & Others Vs. State [1996 (2) KLT 306] is relied on and the learned Counsel would submit that respondents in view of the dictum laid down in the judgment (Supra), despite the rank list being valid, cannot be permitted to appoint/recruit temporary employees on daily wages.

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the written test was conducted on 11.9.1997. The further processes of selection were kept in abeyance as a result of the ban on appointments imposed by the Government of Kerala. Consequent upon the partial lifting of the ban, skill test and interview were conducted on 2nd and 3rd July 2010 and the rank list was published on 24.7.2010. Few persons alleging irregularities in the process of evaluation approached this Court vide OP No.28582/1999 and this Court directed the respondents to examine the matter. The Syndicate in the meeting held on 17.12.1999 resolved to conduct enquiry by appointing two members for that purpose. Revaluation was conducted and finding some variation in the two valuations, fresh valuation was conducted. The validity period of the rank list of L.D.Driver will cease to exist as and when the process of recruitment of candidate to the one vacancy that existed on the date of notification is completed. The University has the powers to restrict the appointment to the once vacancy that existed at the time of notification in view of the chances for appointment to the younger generation.

4. I have heard the parties and appraised the paper books.

5. During the course of hearing, this Court specifically asked a question that during all these period after the writ petitions were admitted, was there any effort made by the University to notify the vacancies, as rank list of 2010, in view of the interim order, is valid. Learned Counsel representing both sides submitted that, it was not so. It is settled law that contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, but can be in case of regular incumbent. The university notifies the regular vacancy as and when required, but cannot be interdicted or estopped from employing contractual/daily wages to perform the daily wages of coolies as noticed in Ext.P8. All the candidates have a right of consideration, but not of appointment. There would have been a force, had the vacancy been notified and petitioners from the existing rank list had not been considered.

6. The judgment rendered in Jyothish Kumar's Case (supra), pertains to a case that once the vacancies are notified, on subsequent notification, the candidates from the valid and existing rank list can always be taken into consideration. Present cas