LEO ACTIVATION, DIVISION OF BLACK PENCIL ADVERTISING PVT LTD Vs. 49TH ALL INDIA CONGRESS OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Rule 7 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 as amended in the year 2019, runs counter to the directions issued in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2008 17 SCC 703? If not, whether the party respondents/writ petitioners and other similarly placed candidates, who figure in the merit list approved by the Governor, could be appointed to the vacancies arising within one year of the date of approval, in excess of the vacancies notified? These are the two questions arising for our consideration in the appeal. The learned Single Judge directed that an additional list be forwarded to the Governor for approval and appointment as Munsiff-Magistrates, in accordance with the rules, from the merit list dated 20.02.2020. The High Court is in appeal from the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Sri.Elvin Peter, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, would invite us to the various Record of Proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and specifically refer to Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2009 17 SCC 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while laying down a time line for filling up the vacancies arising in the Higher and Subordinate Judicial Service, has specifically prescribed the manner in which the recruitment is to be carried out, from initial notification to the eventual appointment. The directions issued require notification of the vacancies at the beginning of an year including, (i) existing vacancies, (ii) anticipated vacancies in the selection year and (iii) vacancies that my arise due to unprecedented circumstances like death, promotion etc:; the third category being restricted to 10% of the number of vacancies.

(3.) Malik Mazhar Sultan, 2009 17 SCC 24 is referred only to point out that the restriction in the third category has been modified insofar as providing for future vacancies to the extent of 10% of the existing vacancies and not the sanctioned posts. Hence, only those vacancies which exist and that arise within one year as also 10% of such vacancies could be notified for selection. Notification of vacancies arising later, even as per the statutory rules would run counter to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appointments cannot be made, it is asserted, in accordance with the rules which run counter to the directions of the Supreme Court having binding effect under Articles 141 & 142 of the Constitution of India.