AJITH KUMAR V S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the prescribed Ratio between the Direct Recruits and the promotees in the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board ("khadi Board" in short) has to be maintained with respect to the "cadre strength" or the "vacancies", is the basic issue involved.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is mainly against the appointments given by the second respondent "khadi Board" by way of promotion to the posts of Junior Cooperative Inspector, over and above the ratio fixed by the Regulations produced as Ext. P6 in WP (C) No. 11332 of 2005 (Ext. P2 in WP (C) No. 18124 of 2006 ). It is contended that the ratio of 60:40 prescribed between the direct recruits and promotees has been violated and that the excessive promotions are detrimental to the interest of the petitioners who are waiting for their turn by virtue of their position in the rank list prepared and published by the PSC. The averments and allegations as to the violation of the ratio have been denied by the Board through different statements filed in WP (C) No. 11332 of 2005 and as per the counter affidavit filed in WP (C) No. 18124 of 2006.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 11332 of 2005 (which is treated as the "leading case" for the purpose of convenience) the vacancies originally notified as borne by Ext. P1 were only "4". After filing the writ petition, pursuant to the interim order dated 20/06/2005, "8" more vacancies were reported to the PSC as borne by Ext. R1 (a) produced along with the statement filed by the Khadi Board in response to IA No. 15300 of 2005. Thereafter, the petitioners produced Ext. P7 along with IA No. 3750 of 2006 showing the particulars of the 16 persons stated as promoted after 1996 under the 40% quota ear marked to the feeder category of Junior Cooperative Inspectors. The hypothetical contention putforth in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the IA is that, if 40% quota for promotees denotes "16" vacancies / promotees, the corresponding extent of 60% ear"marked for Direct Recruits will come to "24" and since only 12 vacancies (originally 4 + subsequent 8 pursuant to the interim order) were reported to the PSC, there is a residual extent of "12" more vacancies seeking the same to be reported as per the said interlocutory application. However, this Court while passing the interim order dated 15/09/2006 in the said IA No. 3570 of 2006 directed the Khadi Board to report only "5" more vacancies of Junior Cooperative Inspectors to the PSC before the expiry of rank list, however, making it clear that the PSC need not advise candidates against those 5 vacancies until further orders. Pursuant to the above said interim order, 5 more vacancies were reported by the Khadi Board as pointed out in their statement dated NIL (filed on 04/10/2006) and as confirmed by the third respondent in their counter affidavit dated 31/10/2006. Referring to the application of the quota rule on the basis of "cadre strength", particularly based on the principle / dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Prakash v. Kurien, 1999 KHC 408, the Khadi Board has given the break up figures as follows: Cadre strength of J. C. I.- 36 40% of 36 cadre strength (4 promotees) - 14 Present strength of promotees - 11 60% of quota of for direct recruitment (of the cadre strength) - 22 No. of J. C. I now working who are directly recruited through KPSC - 21 No. of vacancies to which advice list is already received - 3 Accordingly, it is contended by the second respondent Khadi Board that altogether 24 persons were recruited through the PSC, which reveals that the recruitment to two posts was in excess than the prescribed quota for the direct recruits and however, that these two posts have to be adjusted later in tune with the judgment of the Apex Court to remove the imbalance. It is asserted by the Khadi Board that the quota rule has never been violated and that the number of promotees never exceeded 14 at any point of time.