SUROOP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against the common judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 6000/05 and connected cases. The issue coming up for consideration is direct recruitment to the post of Excise Inspector governed by Special Rules relating to Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Services. Every fourth vacancy in the category of Excise Inspector is earmarked for direct recruitment, going by the Special Rules. That shall have to be worked out on the basis of arising vacancies in the cadre strength, it is contended. R.5 enables working out of the ratio or rotation, as the case may be, when more than one method is provided for appointment to a post, on cadre strength. That cannot be applied in this case because, it is contended that the specific percentage of post is reserved for direct recruitment as in the case of Preventive Officers considered in Seethilal v. State of Kerala, ( 2000 (2) KLT 475 ). The learned Single Judge did not accept that contention. Therefore, this appeal.

(2.) Whether it is in the category of Preventive Officer, Excise Inspector or in any other category, working of rotation is provided in the Special Rules for Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service, whether the ratio is mentioned in terms of percentage or on turn basis or as a definite vacancy in a block, it amounts to a ratio provided for in the method of appointment. R.5 of the General Rules in the K.S. & S.S. Rules, has to be construed on similar basis irrespective of whether the ratio is mentioned on percentage basis or on rotation or on quota basis.

(3.) The further contention that the judgment relied on by the learned Single Judge is under challenge before the Supreme Court is of no avail to canvass admission of the writ appeals, as, at present, the issue stands covered by a judgment pronounced by this Court. Necessarily, the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.