MOHAMMED NAJIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Public Service Commission issued notification dated March 12, 1985 inviting applications for the post of Amin in ten districts, including Kannur, Ernakulam and Idukky. Four vacancies were notified in Kannur, and one in Idukky, while the number of vacancies in Ernakulam remained to be ascertained. The petitioners in these five writ petitions applied for the post, for which an examination was held, and eventually select lists prepared and published in 1988, in which the petitioners were included, some of them with the topmost ranks. Petitioners were nevertheless not appointed, because of an amendment to the statutory rules by the government order dated December 6, 1985, a copy of which is Ext. P2 in O.P.No.9879 of 1989. Petitioners have filed these Original Petitions with prayer for direction to the respondents to appoint them in the vacancies which existed on 12-3-1985, in accordance with the select lists prepared by the Public Service Commission.

(2.) The post of Amins is borne in category 7 of class I of the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Service governed by the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, made under S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. Appointment of Amins was previously by promotion of qualified Attenders in Class II of the service, and in the absence of suitable and qualified attenders, by transfer of qualified last grade servants in the same unit; and by direct recruitment, a ratio of 1:1 being maintained between promotion/transfer and direct recruitment. This was altered by the amendment Ext. P2 dated December 6, 1985 with retrospective effect from February 24, 1981. Amins were thereafter to be appointed by promotion of Attenders under Class II, or if no suitable or qualified attender was available by recruitment by transfer from the members of the Kerala Last Grade Service of the same district unit; or if no suitable and qualified hands were available in these categories, by direct recruitment. The consequence of this rule was that no Amin could be appointed by direct recruitment unless there was no suitable and qualified Attender to be promoted, or last grade servant in the same district unit to be transferred, and posted as Amin. It was because of this amendment which operated from February 24, 1981 that the petitioners could not be appointed as Amins despite the high rank obtained by many of them in the select lists.

(3.) Petitioners contend that the selection process having been set in motion, it had to be completed and appointments made from the select lists so prepared, to the vacancies which existed on the date of the notification namely March 12, 1985. The retrospective effect given to the rules has to be ignored and the appointments made on the basis of the rules as they existed on the date of the notification. It is stated that the amendment cannot take away or impair vested or accrued rights; the premise being that the applicants have a vested right to have the appointments made from but of the select lists, when once the selection process has been set in motion. Support for these propositions is sought to be drawn from the decisions of this court in Velayudhan v. State of Kerala, 1985 KLT 793 = 1985 KLJ 300 and of the Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852 , A.A. Calton v. Director of Education, AIR 1983 SC 1143 , State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, 1983 (2) SCC 33 , K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281 , S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R.T.C. 1986 (3) SCC 273 , T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, (1986) Supp. SCC 584, P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 , N. T. Devinkatti v. Karnataka P.S.C. 1990 (3) SCC 157 and Dr.P.K. Jaiswal v. Ms. Debi Muklierjee, 1992 (1) SLR 593 .