HAREENDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dismissing a Writ Petition, O.P. No. 12880 of 1998 filed by two advocates whose names were included in the list of candidates prepared by the second respondent, the Registrar of High Court of Kerala. They applied for the post of Munsiff - Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service pursuant to Ext. P1 notification dated 18.10.1995. Ext. P2 is the list of 84 candidates found suitable for appointment as Munsiff -Magistrate in the direct recruitment quota arranged in the order of merit. In the said list the ranks assigned to the appellants 1 and 2 are 12 and 39 respectively. The above list was prepared by the second respondent in accordance with R.7 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules'). Ext. P2 list of candidates was forwarded to the Governor as required under sub-rule (2) of R.7. The said list was approved by the Governor as per order dated 21.7.1996 and it was valid for two years, that is to say, it would expire on 20.7.1998, so points out by the appellants.

(2.) The counsel for the appellants contends that the number of vacancies to the post of Munsiff - Magistrate as per Ext. P1 is 42 and that is apparent from 84 candidates being empanelled in the list. In support of this position reliance is placed on sub-r. (2) of R.7 which says that the list consisting of not more than double the number of probable vacancies notified shall be forwarded for the approval of the Governor. It is pointed out that only 20 candidates from the list were appointed. The appellants plead that there are at least 7 vacancies existing now and therefore they seek a direction to the respondents to fill up the existing and next arising vacancies to the post from Ext. P2 list of candidates found suitable.

(3.) The second respondent Registrar filed a counter affidavit opposing the aforesaid claim. His case can be summarised briefly thus. The probable number of vacancies notified was 20, out of which 15 by direct recruitment from the Bar and 5 by recruitment by transfer in accordance with R.5(3) of the Rules. Annexure A appended to letter dated 28.6.1996 addressed to the Government was a list of 84 candidates found suitable for appointment in the direct recruitment quota. Annexure B thereto is the list of two candidates found suitable for appointment in the transfer quota in the order of merit. Annexure C is the list of 18 candidates found suitable for appointment as Munsiff - Magistrate in the direct quota applying R.14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. Thus after following the above procedure prescribed for selection, a list of 20 (18 bar candidates and 2 service candidates) was prepared and forwarded for approval. The Government issued an order, Ext. R2(b) dated 29.7.1996 appointing the said 20 candidates as Munsiff - Magistrates. The Munsiff - Magistrate Recruitment Committee constituted for the purpose of selection, on a consideration of all the vacancies then existing and the vacancies likely to arise during the next two years, fixed the probable number of vacancies as 20. The allegation that 84 candidates were empanelled in the list to fill up 42 probable vacancies of Munsiff - Magistrates was denied. It is not mandatory that the list should always contain twice the number of probable vacancies. In the present case, the number of vacancies notified was 20 and the list forwarded to the Governor for approval contained only 20 candidates. The said list has now been exhausted and there is no other list from which the appointment can be made.