Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 767 (KER)

K. Ajeesh Kumar v. University of Kerala

2001-12-21

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2001
Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J Issue involved in both these appeals is the same. Hence we are disposing of the same by a common Judgment. Appellant in both these appeals is the same. So also in the writ petition. 2. University of Kerala published a notification dated 15-6-1998 inviting applications for filling up of the post of Field Investigator and Computer. Appointment is for a period of three years and the scheme is sponsored by the Government of India. Posts are temporary and liable to be terminated at any time by the Government of India. In pursuance to the notification several persons applied. A written test followed by an interview was conducted and ultimately a rank list was published. Petitioner was ranked as No.10. First rank holder belongs to a forward community, second rank holder belongs to other Backward Community and also the 10th in the rank list. Petitioner's contention was that since vacancies notified were three and since 50% of the appointments should go to candidates on merit, rank Nos.1 and 2 had to be treated as appointees under open competition and the third vacancy should go to the next candidate eligible for appointment from Other Backward Community. In order to establish his claim petitioner placed reliance on the proviso to rule 14 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate service Rules (hereinafter called the Rules). 3. Before the learned single Judge respondents took up the stand that eventhough three vacancies were notified there was no necessity of filling up of all the vacancies. According to the them, there was necessity to fill up only two vacancies and consequently petitioner who was rank No.10 had no chance to get appointment. So also the stand of the University that there was necessity of filling up of only two posts in the year 1998-99. The next vacancy to fill up was only in the year 1999-2000. According to the counsel, vacancies are to be filled up according to job requirement. The same cannot be said to be illegal. Learned single Judge accepting the contention of the respondents dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been preferred. 4. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the appellant Sri. Raghunath as well as the standing counsel for the University and also the counsel appearing for the third respondent. Learned single Judge accepting the contention of the respondents dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been preferred. 4. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the appellant Sri. Raghunath as well as the standing counsel for the University and also the counsel appearing for the third respondent. We also called for the files and perused the same. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Sri. Raghunath tried to project his case mainly relying upon the proviso to Rule 14(c) of Part III of the Rules. He has also placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in V.P. Jose v. Kerala Khadi and village Industry Board and others , 1987(2) I.L.R. Kerala 465. We have no quarrel with regard to the principles laid down in the said decision as well as the rule which is quoted by the learned single Judge. For easy reference we may refer to the said rule over and again. "Provided also that in preparing the list of eligible candidates to be appointed under this rule applying the roations specified above in evey cycle of 20 vacancies, the candidates eligible to be selected on open competition basis, that is, turns 1,3,5,7,9, 11,13,15, 17 and 19 shall be selected first and then the candidates for the reservation turns, out of those available in the ranked list in the particular groups having regard to their ranks. In finalsing the select list any candidate of the same community selected on open competition turns, if found to be below in the order of the candidates selected from the same community on the basis of reservation, for the fixation of ranks as per rule 27 of these rules, candidates of the same community obtaining higher marks shall be interchanged with the candidates of the same community in the reservation turn for the purpose of ranking". Now the question to be considered is whether the proviso is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This is a case where vacancies of Computer were filled up in the year 1998-99. Ext.R1(b) letter dated 8-2-1999 would show that the request was made to fill up only two posts in that financil year. Since two vacancies were filled up in the year 1998-99 the first should go to open quota and second turn to reservation category. This is a case where vacancies of Computer were filled up in the year 1998-99. Ext.R1(b) letter dated 8-2-1999 would show that the request was made to fill up only two posts in that financil year. Since two vacancies were filled up in the year 1998-99 the first should go to open quota and second turn to reservation category. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that third vacancy also should have been filled up along with other two vacancies in the year 1998-99, in the event of which the first two could have been filled up from open compeition turn and third could be filled up from reservation quota and consequently petitioner would have got appointment. Counsel submitted it would have advanced the interest of reserved communities. 5. We find it difficult to accept the said contention. The post could be filled up depending upon job requirement. We may note that this is a scheme sponsored by government of India and the posts are purely temeporary and laible to be terminated at any time by the Government of India. Facts reveal that in the year 1998-99 there was necessity to fill up only two posts and those posts were filled up, first from the open competition category and other from reserved category. This court in this jurisdiction is not justified in giving a direction to the respondent to fill up third vacancy also in the same year or to fill all the posts together. 6. Apex Court in Govt. of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das, (1998) 1 SCC 487 held that if the appointing authority decides not to make further appointments for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has acted arbitrarily by not appointing the persons whose names are included in the select list. Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitary, this court will not be justified in interfering with such decision. We have in this case called for the files. We found no arbitrariness in the decision taken by the authorities not to fill up all the vacancies at a stretch. We have indicated that the posts are temporary and related to a project work. Consequently necessity to be assessed by the authorities in accordance with their requirement. We have in this case called for the files. We found no arbitrariness in the decision taken by the authorities not to fill up all the vacancies at a stretch. We have indicated that the posts are temporary and related to a project work. Consequently necessity to be assessed by the authorities in accordance with their requirement. Under such circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Appeals lack merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.