Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 716 (KER)

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Soumya

2018-09-06

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2018
JUDGMENT : We see the angst of young, qualified men and women seeking and aspiring for employment to the various Public Sector Undertakings [PSUs for short] under the Government of Kerala in these set of cases. Their disquiet is exacerbated because the Rank list, in which they are included, is now set to expire in a few weeks, but their fate still remains entangled in litigation. They, therefore, pray that a path, guided more by practically than legalese, be now directed to be adopted, so that they can be freed from this predicament soon. 2. The persons involved, namely the writ petitioners in the various writ petitions and the respondents in W.A. No. 1569 of 2018, are all concededly included in a rank list prepared by the Public Service Commission [PSC for short], for being appointed as Junior Assistants/Assistant Grade II/Lower Division Clerk in the various PSUs, including Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [KSRTC], Kerala Live Stock Development Board [KLSDB], State Farming Corporation of Kerala [SFCK] etc. prepared pursuant to the notification published in the gazette dated 31.12.2011. These posts are shown as category No. 490/2011 in the said notification and they carry common prescriptions as regards qualifications and experience. 3. We see from the records that on the basis of an OMR test held by the PSC on 13.07.2013, the rank list for the post was brought into force w.e.f.29.09.2015. Obviously, therefore, this rank list is in force only until 28.09.2018. It is the prospect of the rank list expiring in the imminent future that has driven all these individuals to litigation before this Court, claiming that they be appointed to the available vacancies under the KSRTC and the other PSUs. 4. All these writ petitions contain similar averments and have sought for prayers that are analogous to each other, and we, therefore, deem it appropriate to dispose of all these jointly by this judgment. However, we deem it apposite to treat W.A. No. 1569 of 2018 as being the lead case because our views in the said appeal will modulate and direct all further course to be adopted with respect to the other writ petitions. 5. We have heard Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel, Sri. P. Nandakumar, Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil - the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions; Sri. 5. We have heard Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel, Sri. P. Nandakumar, Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil - the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions; Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the KSRTC; Sri. P. Sanjay the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in W.A. No. 1569 of 2018; and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC. 6. Writ Appeal No. 1569 of 2018 arises against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13473 of 2017. This Writ Petition was filed by the party respondents herein praying that the KSRTC be directed to report all available vacancies, so that PSC will be in a position to make advice against the said vacancies. It transpires that, by an interim order, dated 13.09.2017, the learned Single Judge directed the KSRTC to report 209 non-joining duty [NJD] vacancies within a month subject to further orders. The learned Judge, thereafter, disposed of the Writ Petition ordering the PSC to make advice of eligible candidates from the rank list against these reported vacancies in the Post of Junior Assistants/Assistant Grade II/LDC within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is this judgment that has been impugned by the KSRTC in this appeal. 7. The singular and primary contention of the KSRTC in their appeal is that, they no longer require 209 numbers of Junior Assistants in their services, since there are already 1024 Junior Assistants/Assistants in the Corporation which presently operates only 6350 buses. They further say that consequent to the merging of depots and comprehensive computerization, added with the increase in the working hours, they do not require any further Junior Assistants in their service. They thus contend that when there is no requirement for the Corporation, the learned Judge ought not to have given an affirmative direction to appoint 209 such persons to these vacancies. In effect, the submission of the KSRTC, as voiced through their learned counsel, is that they do not propose to fill these 209 vacancies any time in future either, thereby to mean that they virtually treat these vacancies as having been abolished. 8. In effect, the submission of the KSRTC, as voiced through their learned counsel, is that they do not propose to fill these 209 vacancies any time in future either, thereby to mean that they virtually treat these vacancies as having been abolished. 8. When these submissions were made at Bar by the learned counsel for the KSRTC, the various learned counsel including the learned senior counsel, Sri. N. N. Sugunapalan appearing on behalf of the various writ petitioners in the above Writ Petitions, submitted that the anxiety of their clients is not to be appointed to the KSRTC above but that their right to obtain employment in any of the other PSUs and corporations be protected. 9. However, Sri. P. Sanjay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, made a discordant note by asserting that his clients are desirous of joining the KSRTC alone since if appointments are made by the KSRTC to the 209 vacancies which are now reported, his clients would certainly be in the field of choice. 10. Normally, when submissions are made before us by the various learned counsels for the writ petitioners that they do not require to be appointed in the KSRTC alone and they would be happy and satisfied if they are advised and appointed by the PSC to any of the other PSUs as per their position in the rank list, it would not be necessary for us to delve into these issues in detail. However, since Sri. P. Sanjay makes a submission on behalf of the respondents in W.A. No. 1569 of 2015 in support of the directions of the learned Single Judge, it would become enjoined on us to explain the reasons why we do not favour the directions contained in the impugned judgment. 11. It is not controverted before us, even by the party respondents in W.A. No. 1569 of 2018, that what is stated by the KSRTC with respect to their staff position is any manner incorrect or confutative. We when say this we are certainly cognizant of the submissions of Sri. P. Sanjay that the requirement of staff as now contended by the KSRTC is based on 'Sushil Khanna Committee Report' which, according to the learned counsel, does not relate to ministerial staff but only to the staff operating on buses. Even though we hear Sri. We when say this we are certainly cognizant of the submissions of Sri. P. Sanjay that the requirement of staff as now contended by the KSRTC is based on 'Sushil Khanna Committee Report' which, according to the learned counsel, does not relate to ministerial staff but only to the staff operating on buses. Even though we hear Sri. P. Sanjay as afore, we do not think that it will be justified for us to conclude in the manner as he has submitted, because it is for the KSRTC to decide the number of employees that they want on their board and the manner in which they are to be controlled and modulated. When the KSRTC is vehement that they do not require these 209 posts and since they virtually take the position that these posts should be deemed to be abolished, we find no reason why we must burden them with additional personnel, especially when, by doing so, it would perhaps cause prejudice than benefit to such additional personnel, including the respondents in this appeal, since there is a real chance that immediately after appointment, the KSRTC would embark upon the procedure for retrenchment of non-requisite staff. 12. For this reason, we do not find favour with the submission of Sri. P. Sanjay and we are of the view that if we now free the PSC from the directions that have been issued by the learned single Judge, all the writ petitioners, including in the W.P (C). No. 13473 of 2017 who are the party respondents in W.A. No. 1569 of 2018, would stand reverted to their original position in the rank list and we are sure that the PSC would, thereafter, be in a position to advice them to other PSUs, Corporations and Companies as per the requisition received by them from such entities. 13. In the above perspective, it is certain that we cannot grant our imprimatur to the directions of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 13473 of 2017 and consequently, W.A. No. 1569 of 2018 is allowed, setting aside the said judgment. 14. 13. In the above perspective, it is certain that we cannot grant our imprimatur to the directions of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 13473 of 2017 and consequently, W.A. No. 1569 of 2018 is allowed, setting aside the said judgment. 14. As a necessary corollary, the advice made under the directions of the learned single Judge would stand set aside, consequently reverting all the persons under such advices to their respective position in the rank list, thus enabling the PSC to make further advice in terms of the requisition received by them from other PSUs, Corporations and Companies, governed by recruitment notification dated 31.12.2011. 15. When we have formulated our opinion as afore in the Writ Appeal, it becomes inescapable that all the above writ petitions, would, consequently, deserve to be allowed. The petitioners in those writ petitions would also be governed by the directions afore and their inclusion in the rank list would certainly obtain to them the entitlement to be considered for advise by the PSC, with respect to the vacancies reported to them by the various PSUs, Corporations and Companies as per the original notification. 16. Since we are aware that the rank list is expiring on 28.09.2018, we would direct the competent authority of the PSC to expedite the process of advice of candidates, so that the long wait of the petitioners for employment would not end in vain. 17. Needless to say, the KSRTC would not be in a position to fill up the 209 vacancies involved herein in any manner, be that temporary, adhoc, contract or such other; and that for all practical purposes, it would be deemed that these vacancies are now abolished. These matters are thus ordered.