K AJEESH KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue involved in both these appeals is the same. Hence we are disposing of the same by a common Judgment. Appellant in both these appeals is the same. So also in the writ petition.

(2.) University of Kerala published a notification dated 15-6-1998 inviting applications for filling up of the post of Field Investigator and ComputeService - Filling up of posts - discretion of the authority - Whether to fill a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary, High Court will not interfere CDJ 2002 KHC 161 HIGH COURT OF KERALA THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR K. Ajeesh Kumar v. University of Kerala & Others Case No: WA No 3015 of 2001 Date of Decision(dd/mm/yy) 21/12/2001 Appearing Advocate(s): For Petitioner: G.S. Reghunath, Advocate For Respondent: R1 S. Gopakumaran Nair, SC Kerala UTY. R2 P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, SCGSC Citation:CDJ 2002 KHC Case No. 161 SUBJECT INDEX Service - Filling up of posts - discretion of the authority - Whether to fill a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary, High Court will not interfere JUDGMENT / ORDER K.S. Radhakrishnan, J Issue involved in both these appeals is the same. Hence we are disposing of the same by a common Judgment. Appellant in both these appeals is the same. So also in the writ petition. 2. University of Kerala published a notification dated 15-6-1998 inviting applications for filling up of the post of Field Investigator and Computer. Appointment is for a period of three years and the scheme is sponsored by the Government of India. Posts are temporary and liable to be terminated at any time by the Government of India. In pursuance to the notification several persons applied. A written test followed by an interview was conducted and ultimately a rank list was published. Petitioner was ranked as No.10. First rank holder belongs to a forward community, second rank holder belongs to other Backward Community and also the 10th in the rank list. Petitioner's contention was that since vacancies notified were three and since 50% of the appointments should go to candidates on merit, rank Nos.1 and 2 had to be treated as appointees under open competition and the third vacancy should go to the next candidate eligible for appointment from Other Backward Community. In order to establish his claim petitioner placed reliance on the proviso to rule 14 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate service Rules (hereinafter called the Rules).

(3.) Before the learned single Judge respondents took up the stand that eventhough three vacancies were notified there was no necessity of filling up of all the vacancies. According to the them, there was necessity to fill up only two vacancies and consequently petitioner who was rank No.10 had no chance to get appointment. So also the stand of the University that there was necessity of filling up of only two posts in the year 1998-99. The next vacancy to fill up was only in the year 1999-2000. According to the counsel, vacancies are to be filled up according to job requirement. The same cannot be said to be illegal. Learned single Judge accepting the contention of the respondents dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been preferred.