AJEESH KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in these Original Petitions relates to the appointment to the post of Computer in the Population Research Centre under the first respondent. Petitioner is same in both the Original Petitions. As per the notification dated 15. 6. 1998 the first respondent invited applications to the post of Field Investigator and Computer. It is seen from the notification that the appointment is for a period of three years and the Scheme is sponsored by the Government of India and the posts are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time by the Government of India. Pursuant to a written test followed by an interview, a short list consisting of 15 candidates was published (Ext. P5 in O. P. No. 4277 of 1999 ). Petitioner is rank No. 10. It can be seen from Ext. P3 list that the first rank holder belongs to a forward community, second to O. B. C. and 10th also to O. B. C. and others in between belong to forward communities. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the vacancies notified are three and since 50% of the appointments should go to candidates on merit, rank Nos. 1 and 2 have to be treated as appointees under open competition and therefore the third vacancy should go to the petitioner who is the next candidate eligible for reservation. Petitioner bases his contention on clause 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Public Service commission Recruitment Manual which reads as follows: "in working out the rotation for every such unit of 20 or fraction thereof the open competition turns should be filled up first in the order of rank of candidates in the ranked list irrespective of their community and the reservation turns should be filled up thereafter, one by one".

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the proviso to R. 14 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules also fortifies his contention. During the pendency of O. P. No. 4277 of 1999 the third respondent in O. P. No. 9238 of 2000 was appointed subject to the result of the Original Petition and the challenge against that appointment is made in O. P. No. 9238 of 2000.

(3.) THOUGH three vacancies are notified initially it is for the appointing authority to decide as to how many vacancies should be filled up. One cannot compel the appointing authority to fill up all the notified vacancies.