The court affirmed the necessity to adhere to the existing cadre strength and quota provisions for direct recruitment, emphasizing that amendments do not apply retrospectively to affect previously established recruitment processes.

J U D G M E N T

The issue raised in WP(C) Nos.653/08, 34829/08, 29087/09, 30506/09, 36191/09, 36753/09, 4980/2010, 6036/2010, 12298/2010, 13751/2010, 13780/2010 and 17500/2010 is the legality of the steps taken by the respondents to appoint 158 candidates to the post of Excise Preventive Officers by direct recruitment. WP(c).Nos.21547/2010 & 20867/2010 have been filed by the candidates who have been advised by the PSC for appointment to the post of Excise Preventive Officers in the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, complaining that they are not issued orders of appointment. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are connected, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Among the Writ Petitions challenging appointment by direct recruitment, WP(c).No.6036/2010, is treated as the leading :2 :

case and the facts pleaded are as follows;

3. First petitioner in this writ petition is the Kerala State Excise Staff Association, Kozhikode District Committee. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are Excise Preventive Officers and petitioners 5 and 6 are Excise Guards. Appointment to the post of Preventive Officers is governed by Excise Preventive Subordinate Service Rules 1974, ( here-in-after referred to as the “Special Rules” for Short). In terms of the Special Rules the post of Excise Preventive Officers is to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion from Excise Guards. As per the Special Rules, every 4th substantive vacancy shall be filled up or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining vacancies shall be filled by promotion from among the Excise Guards, possessing the minimum qualification of SSLC and those who do not possess the said qualification, in the ratio of 1:1.

4. Case of the petitioners is that every 4th vacancy in the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers is to be filled up by direct recruitment and that this position continued until the issuance of Ext.P8 dated 4.6.2008, when the Special Rules were amended :3 :

dispensing with direct recruitment. Petitioners state that, the cadre strength of Excise Preventive Officers was 842 and the posts available in the direct recruitment quota was 210. While so, ranked list was published by PSC on 31.12.1997 and 293 persons were advised from the ranked list, while the quota earmarked for direct recruitment only required advise and appointment of 202 candidates alone. It is stated that since excess candidates were appointed in the direct recruitment quota, several writ petitions were filed before this court questioning the validity of excess appointments. The writ petitions were disposed of by the judgment in Seethilal V. State of Kerala ( 2000(2)KLT 475 ) holding that the quota available to the direct recruits, should be maintained on the cadre strength. It is stated that the writ appeals filed against the judgment were dismissed and that in implementation of the aforesaid judgment, Ext.P4 order dated 14.10.2003 was issued by the Government directing that the excess appointees will be retained as Supernumerary till they are absorbed in the subsequent direct recruitment vacancies.

:4 :

5. While so, Ext.P5 order dated 4.4.2006 was issued by the Government directing that the direct recruits will be given seniority as per the provisions contained in Rule 27(c) of KS & SSR. Ext.P5 order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.13177/2006. The writ petition was allowed quashing Ext.P5 and directing to reconsider the matter with notice to all concerned. Petitioners state that accordingly the Government reconsidered the matter and issued Ext.P6 order dated 28.2.2007 restoring Ext.P4 order. It is stated that Ext.P6 was also set aside by this court upholding Ex.P5 and that the Writ Appeals filed against the said judgment were allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge was reversed by a Division Bench of this court in the judgment in State of Kerala V. Krishna Kumar ( 2009(3) KLT 274 ).

6. The case of the peti