REGISTRAR (GENERAL) Vs. BEENA C.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registrar (General), High Court of Kerala, who is the respondent in W.P.(C)No.16069/2013, is challenging judgment of the learned single Judge, dated 27.9.2013. The writ petitioner, who belongs to a scheduled caste community, was included in the rank list prepared by the appellant for appointment to the post of Peon, which came into force with effect from 29.12.2010. The selection was by virtue of notification, published by the appellant on 21.12.2009, requiring the District Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates for appointment against the notified vacancies in the category of Peon. It is evident that the petitioner was ranked No.3 in the waiting list. The period of validity of the list was for two years, ending on 28.12.2012. However, there was no fresh rank list published at the time when the writ petition was filed. Therefore the said rank list continued in force. In the writ petition it was contended that, there existed 11 vacancies as on 8.2.2013 and that the appellant had filled up the 10th and 11th vacancies from the existing rank list by overlooking the petitioner's turn. Therefore the petitioner in the writ petition sought for the relief to the extent of appointing her by creating a supernumerary post and also sought for a declaration that the 10th and 11th posts filled up from the existing rank list by overlooking the petitioner's turn is illegal and arbitrary. In the impugned judgment the learned single Judge observed that, the allegation of the petitioner regarding appointment of 10th and 11th turns by overlooking her seniority cannot be considered, because those appointees were not impleaded in the writ petition, despite such specific allegation made. Learned single judge also declined the contention of the petitioner that, the appointments were effected against certain vacancies which are outside the list, by observing that no specific details with respect to such allegation was furnished and no party who allegedly got the appointment was impleaded in the writ petition. But referring to the statement filed by the appellant in the writ petition, the learned single judge observed that, as per Clause 7(2) of the High Court Service Rules, 2007, the rank list should remain in force for a period of two years or until publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. In the case at hand it was found that, eventhough the list expired on 28.12.2012 since no fresh list was prepared for appointment to the post of Peon, the list drawn on 29.12.2010 will continue to be in force. It was found that, if the rank list is in force, necessarily the waiting list also can be operative, subject to the provisions of law. It was found that, there are vacancies existing as revealed from Ext.P2. The learned single judge observed that, what exactly is the number of vacancies which could be filled from candidates included in the list, is not clearly discernible from the pleadings. Therefore the appellant herein was directed to ascertain the number of the vacancies presently available in the category of Peon and also to ascertain the number of vacancies which could be filled up from the list in question. It was specifically directed that, after ascertaining the same, the appointment shall be effected against the permissible number of vacancies, falling under direct recruitment quota, which could be filled up from the list in question, which was drawn on 29.12.2010, in accordance with law, within a time limit stipulated.

(2.) The appellant is challenging the above said judgment by mainly contending that the learned single judge had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the Rules in question prescribe a quota for direct recruitment of Peons. It was pointed out that, under Rule 7 there are six specific methods provided for appointment and that there is no ratio or percentage stipulated for appointment by direct recruitment. It is mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal that, all the seven candidates included in the main list were appointed and no further appointment from the waiting list was made.

(3.) We take note of the fact that, the learned single judge had in fact declined many of the reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner. The only direction issued is to fill up vacancies if any existing, from the rank list, which is remaining in force as on the date of the judgment. It seems that the writ appeal was filed only because the direction contained in the judgment to make the appointment against the permissible number of vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota.