ARAVINDAKSHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the persons whose names are included in a select list of candidates for the post of Police Constable Operator (Telecommunication) in the Telecommunication Wing of the Police Department have an enforceable right against the State to get them appointed in the service is the question that arises in all the above writ appeals. The learned single Judge held that the court cannot direct the State to appoint the persons in the select list prepared by the selection committee. Hence the above writ appeals.

(2.) FIRST petitioners in O. P. Nos. 10418/87, 10317/87, 10490/87 and O. P. No. 10974/87 and the only petitioner in O. P Nos. 212/89 are the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos. 885/88, 898/88, 901/88,1110/88 and 61/89 respectively. Petitioners are persons registered with the Employment Exchange. Pursuant to the requisition from the Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication. Trivandrum, the Director of Employment, Trivandrum on 16th May 1986 sponsored names of 828 eligible persons for appointment to the post of Police Constables in the Police Telecommunication Unit. They were subjected to a written test on 10th August 1986, physical efficiency test on 11th August 1986 and an interview on 12th August 1986. A select list was prepared containing 182 candidates and 58 candidates in the waiting list. Writ appellants were all included in the select list. All of them were informed that they have been provisionally selected as Police Constables (Telecommunication) subject to satisfaction of relevant rules and regulations and were requested to report at Police Telecommunication Headquarters, Pattom, Trivandrum on 6th September 1986 for medical examination. In the meantime it would appear that the select list was challenged in O. P. 9299/86 but the said original petition was dismissed of 9th February 1987. After dismissal of the original petition the selected candidates approached the Superintendent of Police Telecommunication for appointment. Apprehending that nobody will be appointed, the writ appellants and ethers filed original petitions praying for a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the State of Kerala and the Superintendent of Police, respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition, to consider the appellants, names for appointment to the post of Police Constable Operators (Telecommunication), to restrain the said respondents from filling up the posts of Police Constable Operators (Telecommunication) through any other mode deviating from the select list and to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed to the post of Police Constable Operators. (It has to be stated there are 5 petitioners in O. P. No. 10418/87, 15 in O. P. No. 10317/87, 42 in O. P. No. 10490/87 and 27 in O. P. No. 10974/87 and only the first petitioner in each of the O. Ps have filed writ appeals, making others as respondents in each of the respective writ appeals.

(3.) THE fact of the preparation of valid select list has been admitted by the State. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the first respondent and in the first counter affidavit dated 5th April 1988 it is stated that A select list of 182 candidates and a waiting list of 58 candidates were published after the written test, interview, physical efficiency test and the Medical Examination. The list contains the names of the petitioners also. The successful candidates were given specimen copies of bond to be executed in stamp paper on the day of their appointment. Specimen copies of pay certificates were also shown to them to obtain for the sureties in case they were appointed The said counter affidavit further says that Appointment from the select list has not been done since the anticipated vacancies did not arise. There is no attempt from this end for fresh recruitment from the Employment Exchange. Recruitment of Police Constable Telecommunication through the Kerala Public Service Commission is being examined by the Government. The recruitment was conducted to fill up the anticipated vacancy of Police Constables (Telecommunication) which was to arise consequent on the proposed promotion of Police Constables to the Post of Head Constables. At that time there were no test-qualified Police Constables for promotion as Head Constables. The proposal did not materialise due to the stay order issued by this Court in O. P. No. 5851/86 on 11th August 1986. That original petition was disposed of directing the Government to consider the representations submitted by the stagnating Police Constables. Thereafter the Government by G. O (Rt) No. 3039/88/home dated 17th June 1988 ordered that Police Constables who stand denied of promotion for a long period from 1979 for want of test-qualification be given provisional promotion as Head Constables Subject to the specific condition that regularisation of such temporary promotion is subject to passing the prescribed promotion test. This order applies only to those Constables of the Police Telecommunication Unit who are eligible for promotion but for test-qualification on the date issue of this order Thereafter promotion order was issued on 24th June 1988 promoting 208 non-test qualified Police Constables as Head Constables. After the said promotion order there is atleast 208 vacancies to be appointed from the select list. The select list has been held valid by the decision of this Court in O. P. No. 9299/86. But by an additional counter affidavit dated 12th September 1988 filed on behalf of the first respondent it is stated that the first respondent has provisionally decided to bring the recruitment of Police Constables (Telecommunication) within the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission and in the circumstances the Government considered that no regular appointment need by made to the post of Police Constable (Telecommunication) from the select list. It is also stated that if exigencies of service required, filling up any of the vacant posts may be done by the Director General of Police purely on a provisional basis under Rule 9 (a) (i) of the General Rules for a period of 6 months or the Public Service Commission hands join duty, whichever is earlier. 4. The learned single Judge after considering the rival contentions noted the Government's decision to entrust the selection of Police Constables (Telecommunication) to the Public Service Commission and held that the same "is legally sustainable, procedurally fair and non-arbitrary and assures a high degree of rectitude, impartiality and fairness in the selection process. " In that view of the matter the court refused to direct the State to appoint the persons in the select list prepared by selection committee. The learned single Judge made certain directions in para 6 of the judgment as under: