Mere Inclusion In Ranked List Gives No Indefeasible Right To Appointment; Court Upholds Abolition Of Posts As Bona Fide Policy Decision: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-28

No Vested Right to Appointment from Ranked List, Policy Decisions on Posts Valid: Kerala High Court

Kochi, India — The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates on an expired ranked list, reaffirming that mere inclusion in such a list does not grant an indefeasible right to appointment. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that an employer's bona fide policy decision to abolish posts, based on administrative exigencies, cannot be interfered with by the court.

---

Background of the Case

The case, led by Jibin Sebastian vs. High Court of Kerala , involved several petitioners who were included in the ranked list for the post of Office Attendant in the High Court of Kerala, published on June 17, 2022. The original notification in 2019 was for 24 vacancies, but it stipulated that vacancies arising during the list's validity would also be filled from it.

The petitioners' grievance arose when 34 vacancies for Office Attendants that became available during the list's tenure were not filled. Instead, the High Court administration proposed to abolish these 34 posts and create 18 new posts in different cadres. This proposal was approved by the state government shortly after the petitioners' ranked list expired on June 16, 2024. Compounding their grievance, a new notification was issued in May 2024 to fill 34 anticipated vacancies, leading the petitioners to claim the action was arbitrary and designed to deny them appointment.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: - The petitioners, represented by Advocate Sri. Sivan Madathil, argued that the High Court's failure to fill the 34 existing vacancies while their ranked list was active was arbitrary and unjust. - They contended that the subsequent decision to abolish these posts and issue a fresh notification was a mala fide act intended to circumvent their right to be considered for appointment. - They sought a directive to quash the new notification and to be appointed against the 34 posts.

Respondents' Arguments: - The High Court of Kerala, represented by Standing Counsel Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, countered that inclusion in a ranked list does not guarantee appointment. - The decision to restructure the staff pattern was a bona fide policy decision driven by administrative needs. These needs included the redundancy of certain posts due to IT implementation, the revamping of the protocol wing, and the establishment of a new guest house. - The administration explained that due to a financial crisis, the government had rejected a proposal for creating additional posts, which necessitated the conversion of the 34 Office Attendant posts to create 18 essential new roles. - They emphasized their fairness by pointing out that 332 candidates had already been appointed from the list, far exceeding the initially notified 24 vacancies.

Legal Principles and Court's Analysis

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. conducted a thorough review of established legal precedents from the Supreme Court and a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. The court cited several landmark judgments, including Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India and State of UP vs. Raj Kumar Sharma , which establish that:

“Mere inclusion in the select list does not confer any right to be selected even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled… However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.”

The court also relied on the principle that the government has the prerogative to create, continue, or abolish posts as a matter of policy, based on administrative necessity.

Applying these principles, the court observed:

“From the above sequence of events, it is evident that, the decision was taken by the respondent no.1 due to administrative exigencies and no malafide intention or any arbitrariness could be attributed in respect of the same.”

The court found the High Court administration’s reasoning for abolishing the posts—technological advancements and restructuring needs—to be justifiable and a valid exercise of its policy-making power. It also accepted the explanation that the new notification was for future anticipated vacancies and not the 34 that were abolished.

Final Judgment

Concluding that the administration's actions were neither arbitrary nor mala fide, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions. The court ruled that it could not interfere with a bona fide policy decision or direct appointments from a ranked list that had already expired.

The judgment serves as a crucial reminder that while recruitment processes must be fair, administrative bodies retain the authority to restructure their workforce based on evolving needs, and candidates on a ranked list do not possess an absolute right to appointment.