SATHEESH R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are the appellants. They were applicants for appointment to the post of Junior Technician-cum-Fitter Trainee under the 2nd respondent Company. They are entitled to get preference in the matter of appointment, as persons affected by land acquisition made for the purpose of establishing the industrial unit of the Company. When the 2nd respondent invited applications for the above post, they applied and they were included in the wait list. There were 11 candidates in the main list. All of them were appointed. In fact, there were no vacancies to accommodate the appellants. But, they found that there are some vacancies in the higher cadre and if promotions are ordered, the promotees will vacate the lower post, which may result in vacancies for accommodating them. In the above factual background, the Writ petition was filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. The 2nd respondent resisted the Writ Petition, pointing out that there are no vacancies to accommodate the persons included in the wait list. It was submitted that the persons in the lower grade are not qualified for promotion and therefore, the contention of the appellants that on their promotion vacancies will be available also, is untenable. The learned Single Judge accepted the above contentions. The appellants also pointed out the steps taken by the 2nd respondent to make appointments to certain posts, based on internal selection. The learned Judge also found nothing wrong with that, as it was observed that internal selection is being made in the absence of any qualified candidates for promotion from the feeder categories concerned.

(2.) BASED on the above findings, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any reliefs to the appellants. But, it was ordered that if they have any grievance, they may move the Government. In that event, the Government will consider the same. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single judge, this Writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) WE heard Dr. K. P. Kylasanatha Pillay for the appellants. We notice that a person included in the rank list or wait list has no right to get appointment. He has only right to be considered, when vacancies are filled up. In the case on hand, there are no vacancies. The contention of the appellants that if the persons in the lower grade are promoted, that may create vacancies to accommodate them, was also rightly repelled, as, such persons to be promoted were unqualified for promotion. So, we find nothing illegal with the findings of the learned Single Judge, on the above contentions of the appellants.