Appeals against a judgment dismissing writs challenging an appointment order for Assistant Managers. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision that a ranked list was valid only for notified vacancies and post-dated guidelines did not apply.
The writ appeals were dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
WA.No. 2447 of 2015 (J) IN WP(C).12091/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12091/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-10-2015
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
REJI.R AGED 29 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, REJAS, NEAR BHSS ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695101 REP BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N RAVHAVAN S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 67 YEARS, REJAS NEAR BHSS, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695101
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.M.SHINO
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001
2. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN , PB NO 1727 WAREHOUSING CORPORAION ROAD, KOCHI 682016
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI 682016 R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 2466/2015, THE COURT ON 19.2.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------W.A.Nos. 2447 and 2466 of 2015
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Anu Sivaraman, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging Exhibit P4 order and seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to make appointments to all existing vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager in the second respondent Corporation from Exhibit P3 ranked list. The appellants were persons included in the ranked list. It was their contention that Exhibit P4 notification inviting applications for appointment to the same post during the currency of Exhibit P3 ranked list from which only 10 appointments had been made, was illegal and violation of Exhibit P5 guidelines issued by the Government with regard to recruitment of manpower in public sector undertakings. The learned single Judge considered the contentions advanced and found that though Exhibit P3 ranked list was published pursuant to Exhibit P1, the same could be operated only to fill up the vacancies notified as per Exhibit P1 and not for any further vacancies. It was also found that Exhibit P5 guidelines which was dated 17.6.2013, i.e., after the issuance of Exhibit P1 notification, cannot apply to Exhibit P3
WA.2447 & 2466/15 2
ranked list, which was published pursuant to Exhibit P1. On these findings, the writ petitions were dismissed.
3
WA.2447 & 2466/15
governed by its own procedure. It was also found that the guidelines could not have a binding effect and it was only when all existing vacancies were renotified by Exhibit P4 that the appellants had raised a grievance.
Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and after perusing the judgment and materials on record, we find no error or illegality in the judgment of the learned single Judge, which is liable to be interfered with in an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act.
The writ appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
vgs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the validity of a ranked list for recruitment is limited to the number of vacancies originally notified.
Whether post-dated government guidelines affect the validity of a recruitment process initiated earlier.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Reji. R
State of Kerala
Kerala State Warehouse Corporation
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
