Appeal dismissed due to the expiration of appointment timelines and invalidity of time extension claims.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9 ^th day of March 2026 Devan Ramachandran, J The appellants call into question the correctness of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.21036 of 2025, asserting that the denial of opportunity to them to join the posts in question and the extension of time for them to do so are both illegal and unlawful.

2. Sri.H.Jijumon - the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that, since his clients had been allowed to participate in the selection process for all the five districts notified; and since five distinct rank lists were then prepared, each of them ought to have been given appointment orders qua each such district, rather than have confined it to one, and in some cases, to two. He then contended that since his clients were studying at the relevant time, namely in July 2024, - when the orders of appointment were issued to them, they were entitled to be given extension of time to join, as per the circular of the Government of Kerala, dated 28.06.2000.

He asserted that, since the learned single Judge has denied both the afore pleas, his clients are constrained to approach this Court through this writ appeal.

3. In refutation to the afore, Sri.R.Srinath, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that this writ appeal has now become wholly infructuous because, the appointment was only for one year from 2014, which period has now elapsed; and further because, none of the appellants had joined duty within the time granted in their orders of appointment. He pointed out that, going by the orders of appointment, the appellants were given seven days time to join, but they did not do so, relying upon hyper technicalities, with an apparent intent to get more time, which is not possible since the appointment is only for one year.

4. Sri.Sunil Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, made submissions in conformity with the contentions of Sri.R.Srinath, reiterating that this appeal is now unnecessary because, the period of appointment has already elapsed. He then added that the circular relied upon by the appellants is applicable only for regular appointments; and that too, made through the Public Service Commission. He prayed that the appeal be, therefore, dismissed.

5. There is force in the afore submissions of the learned counsel appearing on the array of respondents. We say as afore because, going by the appointment orders on record – namely, Exts.P3(a) and others, the joining time for the candidates was fixed as being seven days from its receipt; and it is admitted before us expressly that this was not done by any of the appellants. The explanation for this is that the appellants were studying and therefore, had applied for extension of time, but which was not been granted.

6. As seen above, the appellants relying upon the circular of the Government, bearing No.5966/Adv.C3/2000/P&ARD dated 28.06.2000, though the same has not been produced on record. However, we see no reason to disbelieve the learned Government Pleader, or Sri.R.Srinath, that the afore circular applies only for regular appointment through the PSC; and this has not been contested by the appellants either.

7. When we find as afore, the other arguments become unnecessary for assessment and on merits, except for an academic reason. But, since the findings of the learned single judge has been assailed, we deem it necessary to deal with it appositely.

8. The argument of Sri.H.Jijumon - the learned counsel for the appellants, is that when the appointments were considered for five distinct districts and when there were five different ranklists, each of the appellants ought to have been granted five appoint