Candidates included in a rank list have no indefeasible right to be appointed, and the state is not obligated to fill all vacancies. Candidates cannot claim a right to vacancies that are not reported, and the state may have valid reasons for not reporting vacancies. Candidates should approach the judicial fora well in advance of the rank list expiry, equipped with relevant factual aspects and materials, to ensure a fair adjudication of their grievances.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The petitioners herein have filed the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A. (Ekm) No. 1977/2021 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the following prayers:

“(i) To direct the 3rd respondent to report all the substantive vacancies including the 91 vacancies shown in Annexure A2 in the post of U.P. School Assistant (Malayalam Medium) in Wayanad district to the 6th respondent before the expiry of Annexure A1 ranked list.

(ii) To direct the 6th respondent to issue advice memos against the vacancies of U.P. School Assistant (Malayalam Medium) in Wayanad district, so reported by the 3rd respondent.

(iii) To direct the 4th respondent to finalise the staff fixation for the academic years 2020-212 and 2021-22 in the post of U.P. School Assistant (Malayalam Medium) in Wayanad district.

(iv) To direct the 3rd respondent to issue appointment orders to the applicants in the post of U.P.S.A. (Malayalam Medium) in Wayanad district immediately on the PSC advising them.

(v) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(vi) To allow the application with costs.”

2. The interim relief sought for by the petitioners in the above Ext.P1 original application is as follows:

“............to direct the 3rd respondent to provisionally report all the substantive vacancies including the 91 vacancies in the post of U.P. School Assistant (Malayalam Medium) in Wayanad district to the 6th respondent so that the report reaches the 6th respondent on or before 05.01.2022.”

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P2 common interim order dated 03.01.2022 in the instant O.A. (Ekm) No. 1977/2021 as well as in a companion matter in O.A. (Ekm) No. 1667/2021, and has noted that already 187 appointments have been made to the post of Upper Primary School Teacher (Malayalam) [UPST (Malayalam)] in Wayanad District and various other vacancies have also been reported and that the department has also stated that urgent steps are being taken to report 7 more anticipated vacancies for the year 2022 to the PSC, etc. Thereafter, the Tribunal has held that no material has been produced in the original applications to enable the Tribunal to come to atleast a prima-facie conclusion that there exists more substantive vacancies in the direct recruitment quota in the post of UPST (Malayalam), Wayanad District and that, in the absence of such materials, the Tribunal has not been in a position to rebut the consistent stand of the department that no further substantive vacancies are available for being reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) and therefore held that the prayer for interim relief to direct the respondent appointing authority to report 91 more vacancies, allegedly pointed out in Anx.A2 tabular chart prepared by the applicants, are not tenable and hence the interim prayer cannot be granted and has accordingly rejected the plea for interim relief.

4. It is this impugned interim order at Ext.P2 rendered by the Tribunal on 03.01.2022, rejecting the plea for provisionally reporting of 91 more vacancies, in the abovesaid post that is under challenge in the present original petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the original applicants in O.A. (Ekm) No. 1977/2021. The prayers in the instant original petition are as follows:

“(i) To allow this O.P. (KAT) and to set aside Exhibit P2 order dated 03.01.2022 in O.A. EKM No. 1977/2021 and to grant the interim relief as sought for in O.A. EKM No. 1977/2021.

(ii) And to issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. Heard Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the OP/applicants in the O.A. Sri. Saigi Jacob Pal