LATHA E. Vs. HAFSABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade II) were selected for Malappuram District in the year 1993. One Smt. K. Hafsabi secured second rank in the merit list and she was appointed as per Ext. P-1 order dated 24th August 1993. But in 1995, Government reviewed the order as per Ext. P-5 which resulted in ouster of Smt. Hafsabi from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor ('APP' for short). In her place one Sri C. K. Krishnankutty (who is the additional 5th respondent in this appeal) has been appointed. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Smt. Hafsabi challenged Ext. P-5 in the Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. The Original Petition was disposed of by Sreedharan, J. who found that the appointment of Sri C. K. Krishnankutty is legally sustainable as the same was necessary for providing reservation for a Scheduled Caste Candidate. However, learned Single Judge noted that as three AP. Ps. were appointed during 1993 in Malappuram District reservation provision had exceeded 50 per cent which is in violation of the principle envisaged in the proviso to R.15(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (General Rules) (for short 'the K.S.S.R.). Hence learned Single Judge, while retaining the appointment of Sri C. K. Krishnankutty, quashed the appointment of Smt. E. Latha (appellant now) and directed the Government to appoint Smt. Hafsabi in that place. Hence this appeal by the aforesaid E. Latha.

(2.) As per the rank list of A.P.Ps. prepared, by the authorities as for Malappuram District, one P. Sakkir Hussain topped the list based on merits. Second place was secured by Smt. Hafsabi while third place was scored by the appellant. Sri C. K. Krishnankutty was ranked No. 8 (those candidates who secured ranks in between do not matter in this case and hence we skip them). When appointments were made Government did not correctly follow the communal rotation formulated as per R.14 to 17 of the K.S.S.R. and appointments were made through Ext. P-1 order. Three candidates so appointed were in the following order: (1) Sakkir Hussain (open merit), (2) Hafsabi (Muslim) and (3) E. Latha (open merit). By Ext. P-5 order, Government superseded Ext. P-1 in the following manner:

(3.) Thus, three candidates were appointed in the order of (1) C. K. Krishnankutty (S.C.). (2) Sakkir Hussain (open merit) and (3) E. Latha. Learned Single Judge has rightly found that the above appointments offended one of the principles of reservation that more than 50 per cent cannot be given to reserved candidates during one year in one category of posts. Proviso to R.15(c) of the General Rules reads thus: