JOY THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an applicant, when the Kerala Public Service Commission notified recruitment as per Ext. P1 to the post of Member (Accounts) in the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Act, 1963. After the process of selection, the P.S.C. drew up a ranked list, Ext. P2, which has come into force with effect from 29.1.1999. Three among the persons ranked in Ext. P2 had been appointed. According to the petitioner, there are 8 Benches of the Tribunal and in each Bench there shall be atleast one Member (Accounts) to discharge the statutory functions enjoined on the Tribunal. There are vacancies of Member (Accounts) in all the Benches, which have to be filled up. The petitioner represented before the Government. Petitioner is given a reply - Ext. P4, which reads as follows:

(2.) A contract appointment under R.9A can be made:

(3.) On the other hand, in accordance with the special rules framed, the recruitment process had commenced and select list had been prepared by the constitutional authority, the PSC, as per Ext. P2. Therefore, regular appointment is envisaged for the post. In such circumstances, regularising the service of a contract appointee, who cannot acquire any right to be a member of service in terms of R.9A, Government cannot deny appointment to a person, who had undergone the selection process by the PSC. When such a list is in force, appointment of an incumbent on regular basis or rather 'regularisation' of an incumbent not included in the list is totally arbitrary offending the rights granted to those included in the list and awaiting appointment. Notification was issued and selection process was pursued in order to give equal opportunity to all concerned as guaranteed under Art.16 of the Constitution of India. When selection process so pursued has resulted in Ext. P2 list, the Government cannot ignore that list and regularise a person, who had been chosen on contract basis. This will offend the right of persons including the petitioner. Thus Exts. P4 and P6 violate the guaranteed rights of the petitioner. Consequently, Exts. P4 and P6 are quashed.