A VIJAYAKUMARI Vs. ANITHAKUMARI P R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 23.5.2012. The writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge were low paid employees of the Kerala Municipal Common Service, who did not possess SSLC qualification. However, all the writ petitioners possessed SSLC qualification and some of them have better than SSLC qualification. As per Exhibit P6 dated 26.10.2005 in WP.(C).No. 15441 of 2011, an amendment was proposed to the existing percentage of posts set apart for L.D.Clerk/Bill Collector in Municipal Common Service from among qualified low paid employees in Municipalities by enhancing 5% of the vacancies in the post of Lower Division Clerk thereby decreasing posts out of direct recruitment quota. This enhanced the opportunity for the low paid employees by another 5% from direct recruitment quota having regard to the facts and circumstances explained at paragraph 2 of Exhibit P6.

(2.) THE fact remains, as on the date of Exhibit P5, the proposed amendment to the Kerala Municipal Common Service (Ministerial & Revenue Branch) Qualification and Method of Appointment Rules, 2011 was not implemented by way of amendment, but it remained only as a Government Order right from 2005 till date, which means, even as on the date of Exhibit P5, the amendment proposed at Exhibit P6 was not brought into effect. But, the selection and appointment so far as allocation of percentage to the category of L.D.Clerk was in fact done as per Exhibit P6. In other words, only at the time of Exhibit P5, such an issue was raised by the petitioners, though there are 120 employees, who are already promoted in terms of Exhibit P6 by transfer from the category of L.D.Typist.

(3.) THE grievance of the appellants is, in the absence of anyone challenging the earlier appointments based on Exhibit P6 order done right from 2005 till Exhibit P5, cannot be disturbed, as no person came forward aggrieved by the said recruitment process adopted. Hence, in the absence of other low paid employees, who are already promoted, being parties to the proceedings, there should not be any disturbance so far as their promotions are concerned. Having regard to the fact that on earlier occasion, there was no challenge to such distribution of percentage of posts as indicated at Exhibit P6 and only when Exhibit P5 came to be published such challenge was made we should restrict our directions only with reference to Exhibit P5 based on Exhibit P6. Therefore, we make it clear that so far as Exhibit P5 is concerned, the selection process must proceed in accordance with the unamended Rules restricting the percentage to low paid employees by recruitment method through PSC only to an extent of 5% and so far as other persons, who are entitled in accordance with unamended Rules, i.e., other 5% from low paid employees, there shall not be any disturbance. We further make it clear that only those persons, who need to be reverted from Exhibit P5 list by following unamended Rules need to be reverted by providing those vacancies of 5% to the writ petitioners as indicated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. With these observations, the Writ Appeals are disposed of.