Court held that prior judgments regarding appointments must respect factual vacancy determinations, affirming adherence to statutory rules in the context of appointment procedures.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The respondent in W.P.(C)No.12960 of 2014 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Horticulture) under the Faculty of Agriculture in the appellant Kerala Agricultural University, pursuant to the notification dated 24.09.2007, issued by the University for the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines. Since the application submitted by the respondent was rejected by the University on the ground that the consent had not been received from the Governor of Kerala for amendment of the statute for raising the upper age limit, the respondent, along with two others, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.13794 of 2008. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court passed in that writ petition, the respondent was interviewed. Later, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by a common judgment dated 22.09.2008, setting aside the orders rejecting the candidature of the petitioners therein. Pursuant to the said judgment, Ext.P1 ranked list dated 30.05.2009 was published by the appellant. The respondent was included as Sl.No.9 in the discipline Horticulture under the Faculty of Agriculture. In the notification, it has been made clear that the vacancies mentioned were purely provisional and subject to variation.

2.1. According to the respondent, from Ext.P1 ranked list, seven persons were appointed. One Associate Professor by name Premalatha T., and five professors not selected for the post of Assistant Professor in Krishi Vigyan Kendras/Externally Aided Projects ('KVKs/EAPs' in short) were liable to be transferred to non-plan posts. The Executive Committee of the University, in its meeting on 17.04.2010, took Ext.P2 decision to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor by appointing candidates included in the existing rank list. The respondent states that if one Associate Professor and five Professors now working in EAP are transferred to their parent Universities, those vacancies will be available for being filled up from Ext.P1 ranked list. In that event, the respondent will get appointment. The Professors now working in the EAP are not entitled to continue there because their parent service is the University service.

2.2. The respondent further pleads that W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 was filed before this Court challenging the action of the University in effecting appointments from the list prepared pursuant to the notification dated 09.10.2007 to the vacancies in excess of the notified number. By Ext.P3 judgment dated 13.08.2010, this Court dismissed that writ petition and hence there was no legal bar for filling up the vacancies in the KVKs/EAPs from Ext.P1 ranked list. Aggrieved by the non-filling of the vacancies of Assistant Professor (Horticulture), the respondent filed W.P.(C)No.9379 of 2011 before this Court. On 26.05.2011, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the University to complete the process of ascertaining the number of vacancies and make appointments of the candidates, including that of the respondent, within a period of one month. Pursuant to that interim order, the University issued Ext.P4 order dated 14.06.2011 stating that on verification of th