P K RAJAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy arising in these four writ petitions is the same, and it relates to the inter se seniority of 31 persons appointed in the cadre of Junior Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department as per advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. O. P. No. 2234 of 1971 was treated as the main case ; and arguments were addressed in that case. I shall, therefore, be referring to the facts of this O. P. and the exhibits therein for the purpose of this common judgment.

(2.) IN 1965, the second respondent, the Kerala Public Service Commission made a selection of candidates for appointment in the cadre of Junior Engineers in the P. H. E. Department; and it drew up a list of 100 candidates in the order of merit. On 17-8-1965, it notified a list of 35 candidates in accordance with Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for appointment to the then existing vacancies. Rule 14 provides for reservation of 10% of the appointments for scheduled castes and tribes, and 40% for backward classes. The remaining 50% shall be appointed on the basis of merit. All appointments have to be made according to order of rotation given in the said rule. Rule 15 provides that, if suitable candidates are not available for appointment in the reserved quota, it would be filled up at the earliest opportunity from duly qualified candidates available within a period of three years, and a corresponding reduction would be made in the appointments on the basis of merit. In other words, the quota reserved for scheduled castes and tribes and backward classes would be carried over for a period of three years. At the time, when the Public Service Commission notified the list of 35 candidates, there were 9 vacancies which should go to the backward classes according to the principle of carry over. The list, therefore, consisted of 9 candidates on the carry over principle, 14 candidates on the basis of merit, and 12 candidates on the basis of reservation. Only 22 persons turned up for appointment, including 7 carry over candidates ; and they were duly appointed in accordance with the advice of the Commission. On 10-81966, the Commission notified another list of 17 candidates for appointment in the remaining vacancies. Of these persons, only 9 joined service. Thus in all 31 persons were appointed; and these are the persons whose inter se seniority is in controversy in these four writ petitions.

(3.) THREE persons included in the Commission's first advice list filed O. P. No. 4550 of 1966 to quash the said list and to direct the second respondent to prepare a fresh list by assigning them ranks in the order of merit. Their main attack was against the inclusion of candidates on the principle of carry over under Rule 15 of the Rules. The three petitioners in O. P. 2234 of 1971 are candidates included in the Commission's second advice list. They intervened in O. P. No. 4550 of 1966 and joined the petitioners therein in their attack against the inclusion of carry over candidates. All except respondents 4, 5 and 8 were parties to that O. P. My learned brother, Govindan Nair, J. , by his judgment, Ext. A-1, dated 21-3-1969, upheld the above contention, and directed the Public Service Commission to prepare a fresh list assigning the appropriate ranks to the 31 persons appointed as Junior Engineers in the light of the directions contained in that judgment. Ext. A-1 stated: It is agreed that all the 31 that have been appointed are entitled to a place and it is not urged that the services of any one of them should be terminated. What is contended is that the application of the principle of carry over must not affect the rights of the petitioners and the intervenors so far as the equal opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution is concerned. This, I am convinced, the complainants are entitled to urge with success. Rule 27 (1) (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, provides that the seniority of the person appointed to a service will be reckoned with reference to the effective date of advice by the Public Service Commission, and if the advice of more than one person is by the same list, according to the order in which their names occur in that list. It is, therefore, important that the order in the list should first be settled in accordance with the guarantees under the Constitution. This should be done in this manner in so far as this case is concerned. It must first be determined how many of the 31 persons appointed have come on the ground of merit and how many on the ground of reservation and how many of the latter category by the application of the principle of carry over. After determining this, those that have been chosen on the ground of merit must be ranked with those that have been selected on the ground of reservation without applying the carry over principle in accordance with the provisions in Rules 14 to 18. After having ranked these two categories, the rest of those persons who have been appointed on the ground of reservation coupled with the principle of carry over will be ranked below the combined list of the other two categories already drawn up. This list so settled will determine the order of seniority inter se between the petitioners, the intervenors and the other persons who have been appointed pursuant to the list Ext. P-2 and pursuant to the further advice consisting of 17 names, to talling in all 31 persons, i direct this should be done as early as possible. Pursuant to the above direction, the Public Service Commission prepared a revised seniority list as per notification, Ext. R-1, dated 12th March, 1971, of the 35 persons which it had advised for appointment. The petitioners in O. P. 2234 of 1971 contend, that this list has not complied with the directions in Ext. A-1. They have, therefore, filed this writ petition to quash Ext. R-l, and to direct the Commission to amend or alter Ext. R-l in terms of Ext. A-1, and to direct the State of Kerala, the first respondent, and the Commission to assign to the petitioners their legitimate ranks and seniority.