Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1356 (SC)

ABOKARE. K. v. STATE OF KERALA

2015-10-05

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, UDAY UMESH LALIT

body2015
ORDER : Leave granted. 2. The grievances of the appellant in this appeal are actually covered by our judgment dated 8.1.2015 passed in C.A. Nos.226-227/2015 (Swapna Sukumar & Others v. State of Kerala and Others), paragraphs 14 and 15 of the same are to the following effect:- “14. The names of the appellants in the Ranking List dated 14th June, 2011, 18th October, 2011, 28th November, 2012, 28th December, 2011, 4th January, 2012, 2nd February, 2012, 6th February, 2012, 15th February, 2012, 21st February, 2012 and 12th March, 2012, shall stand restored and the respondents are directed to operate the said Ranking List on its own merits and wherever it find the appellants suitable and vacancies remain, appointment order shall be issued expeditiously. The first respondent and the second respondent-Commission shall carry out the above-said exercise in accordance with the procedure prescribed expeditiously preferably within a period of two months. 15. We make it clear that we pass the above said order in the peculiar facts of these cases. This cannot be, however, quoted as a precedent in future recruitments. Since the appellants were fighting this litigation by approaching the Tribunal at the earliest point of time and have come up to this Court, it is needless to state that the expiry of the Ranking List should not stand in the way for considering the names of the appellants for issuing the appointment orders in accordance with the procedure prescribed as directed in this order.” 3. Following the said directions, we direct that the name of the appellant in the Ranking List dated 14.6.2011 shall stand restored and the respondents are directed to operate the said Ranking List on its own merits and wherever it finds the appellant suitable and vacancies remain, appointment orders shall be issued expeditiously. Such exercise shall be carried out expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this orders and follow the other directions contained in our judgment referred to above. 4. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.