Appointment and promotion claims to a Corporation's Manager (Operations) post failed. The Court held the selected candidate unqualified and recruitment impermissible without the required Cabinet exception and prior approval. It rejected the internal candidate's promotion and redesignation claims and dismissed all three writ petitions.
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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 20018 of 2016
PETITIONER(S)
KOSHY GEORGE, PALOTTU MADOM, EDAMON P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM),
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN, SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, SRI.ELIAS KURIAN, SMT.SHYNI GEORGE.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, VETTITHITTA P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM- 689 696.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAFAR KHAN. Y.
R2 BY SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.1130 OF 2015 AND W.P.(C) NO.2937 OF 2016, THE COURT ON 22/02/2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 20018 of 2016 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST AND MARK SHEETS OF THE CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29-02-2016. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 02-03-2016. |
| EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01-04-2016. |
| EXHIBIT P4 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN AT THE 294TH BOARD MEETING OF THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED DATED 08-04-2016. |
| EXHIBIT P5 |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2016. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 17/06/1997. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 24/09/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD DATED 29/02/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 17/06/1997 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 01/12/2017. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 23/11/2017. |
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA CO. LTD. DATED 10/06/2009. |
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. DATED 31/03/2009. |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUE BY THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA COMPANY LTD. DATED 19/07/2017. |
....2/-
WP(C).No. 20018 of 2016 (B)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE I | COPY OF THE (OPERATION) |
NOTIFICATION FOR THE POST OF GENERAL MANAGER DATED 14/01/2016. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE R1A | COPY OF THE OF THE GOVER |
LETER NO.112/PU/16/AGRI DATED 16/08/2016 NMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. |
| ANNEXURE R1B | COPY OF THE OF THE GOVER FARMING CORP |
LETTER NO.112/PU/16/AGRI DATED 16/08/2016 NMENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE ORATION OF KERALA LTD. |
| EXT.R1A | COPY OF THE | GO(P) NO.1208/2001/FIN. DATED 22/10/2001. |
| EXT.R1B | COPY OF THE | COMPLAINT DATED 20/07/2016. |
| EXT.R1C | COPY OF THE | JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1663/2016. |
| EXT.R1D | COPY OF THE | REPORT DATED 15/11/2016. |
| EXT.R1E | COPY OF THE | REPORT DATED 11/05/2017. |
| EXT.R2A | COPY OF THE | COMMUNICATION DATED 07/06/2016. |
| EXT.R2B | COPY OF THE DATED 13/07/ |
COMMUNICATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT 2016. |
| EXT.R2B TO EX | T.R2D FILED | ALONG WITH COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 20/10/2017 |
| EXT.R2B | COPY OF THE VIGILANCE OF VIGILANCE CE THIRUVANANTH |
REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY SUBMITTED BY THE FICER (FINANCE) AND SECRETARY, SPECIAL LL, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, APURAM. |
| EXT.R2C | COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDE |
INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF NT DATED 18/05/2017. |
| EXT.R2D | COPY OF THE FROM THE GOV |
LETTER RECEIVED BY THIS RESPONDENT'S OFFICE ERNMENT DATED 28/06/2017. |
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M a n d W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016
The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Manager (Operations) in the State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd., based on Ext.P3 order issued by the 1st respondent on 01.04.2016. Government subsequently found that the post was remaining vacant for a long period and therefore it was liable to be abolished and hence appointment cannot be made to such a post. Petitioner was appointed provisionally on the basis of the interim order passed in this case.
2
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
from among qualified hands. The petitioner submitted application for the same and appeared in the interview held on 24.2.2016. In Ext.P1 rank list he was ranked No.1. The Board of Directors resolved to make appointment from the rank list and authorised the 2nd respondent to seek approval from the Government for appointment. As per Ext.P2 letter dt.2.3.2016, the Managing Director had addressed the Government, forwarding the rank list as well as the resolution of the Board of Directors seeking approval for appointment from the rank list. Thereupon, as per Ext.P3 letter, the Government intimated permission to make appointment subject to the condition that the posting order would be served to the candidate only after the election process was over. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors on 8.4.2016 when it was resolved to accord sanction to serve order of appointment to the selected candidate after the election process was over. As the petitioner was not given appointment even after election was over, he submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Managing Director requesting for orders of appointment. Thereafter, he approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue appointment order to him as Manager (Operations) and to pass orders on his representation Ext.P5. On 23.06.2016 an interim order was passed in this
3
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
case directing the 2nd respondent to provisionally issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, who is the 1st rank holder in the select list for appointment as Manager (Operations) subject to the result of the writ petition. The 1st respondent took up the matter in Writ Appeal No.1663/2016 which was dismissed as per judgment dt.10.4.2017 observing that the direction was subject to the result of the writ petition and in conformity with Exts.P3 and P4.
4
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
notified on 14.01.2016. Out of 10 applications received pursuant to that, six candidates were shortlisted. The Subcommittee constituted for selection conducted the interview and prepared Ext.P2 rank list with the petitioner as the first rank holder; the Board approved it subject to approval of the Government and subject to the decisions in the pending cases. The Government, as per its letter dated 01.04.2016 communicated its decision to permit the 2nd respondent to make appointment on condition that posting order shall be issued only after election. The Corporation therefore as per Ext.R2(a) letter dated 07.06.2016, addressed the Government again, after the election, seeking permission to make appointment.
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
5
had accorded sanction to conduct an investigation against the previous office bearers and persons involved in the process of selection to the post of Manager (Operations).
It is stated that complaints were filed by the local MLA Shri K.B.Ganeshkumar before the Minister for Agriculture on 14.7.2016 and
6
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
20.07.2016 alleging large scale corruption in the selection of the petitioner. Thereupon, a report was called for and Government directed the Director of Agriculture to conduct an enquiry through the internal Vigilance Wing of the department, as per Ext.R1(a). It is stated that the petitioner was working as an Estate Manager and he does not have any vested right for appointment on account of mere inclusion in the rank list.
7
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
respondent Corporation. It is stated that in Ext.R1(b) complaint submitted by the local MLA it was alleged that Sri Mohanan Pillai, the previous Chairman of the Corporation had received a sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards bribe for the appointment of Manager (Operations) and Tapping Supervisors in the Corporation. The internal vigilance conducted an inquiry into the complaint and submitted Ext.R1(b) report. As per the report, the post was lying vacant from 2001 onwards and nobody was put in charge of the post since the year 2010; therefore it was found that the attempts to make appointment in the said post in a hurried manner without obtaining prior sanction of the Government, points out the corruption involved. It is stated that under clause 38 of the Articles of Association of the 2nd respondent, prior approval of Governor is necessary for appointment to managerial posts like General Manager, Company Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer, Personnel Manager, etc. which are not under the purview of the PSC. It is stated that Ext.P3 Government letter cannot be treated as permission from Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution and that no permission was granted by Governor for appointment. It is stated that in the report Ext.R1(e) submitted by the Vigilance Wing into the allegations against appointment of Tapping Supervisors there was no finding as to corruption.
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
8
However prima facie case of corruption was found in the matter of appointment of Manager (Operations). It was stated that Government was proposing to direct the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. Therefore, it is stated that Ext.P3 letter issued by the Government granting permission for appointment was liable to be withdrawn.
9
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
who were put in charge of the post it was stated that the post was not abolished and was not liable to be abolished. It was stated that the Government found it necessary to appoint a person permanently instead of giving fractional arrangements. The petitioner also stated that he was working in a private company in the same capacity before submitting application for the post in the Corporation. Producing certificates he asserts that he has got 9 years' experience under the previous employers; he had produced certificates of experience of more than 7 years before joining duty. It was stated that the rank list was prepared by an interview board mostly consisted of Government officials, after evaluating the comparative merits of candidates and the selection was not tainted by corruption, as alleged.
10
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
means large scale plantations of Rubber, Tea, Coffee, Cardamom and Oil Palm and experience shall not be below the capacity of Assistant Manager.
11
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
subject to the result of the case, taking note of Exts.P3 and P4. It was argued that the petitioner was the only person who was having the prescribed qualifications and hence he was ranked 1; there cannot be any abolition of the post and there is no basis for the allegations of corruption. It was also pointed out that the complainant himself was the previous Chairman of the Corporation.
12
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
which is abolished, as held in M.Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala : 1973 KHC 251. The judgment in Usha K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. : 2008 (1) KHC 191, Sakeena V.A v. State of Kerala & Ors. : 2014 KHC 557 (para.8), Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh & Ors. : 2007 KHC 3073 and judgment in W.A.2094/2016 were also relied on asserting that Government can review the appointment if it was found erroneous later and that court cannot direct appointments.
13
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
14
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
stated therein subsequently that he had produced certain documents by which he was appointed in various posts in that institution for the period from 2009 onwards, which cannot be reckoned as experience. Along with I.A.1691/2018, the petitioner produced Exts.P12 to P15 claiming to be the proof of his experience. But Ext.P12 certificate produced by the petitioner is one issued on 10.6.2009 which provides for the duties which were to be performed by the petitioner when he worked as an executive in Manikal Estate under the Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. Ext.P14 would show that he worked as Assistant Manager for the period from 6.8.2008 to 31.3.2009 in Harrisons Malayalam. However, Ext.P12 certificate would only show that the petitioner worked as an executive. The very same company has issued Ext.P15 certificate in 2017, where it is certified that the petitioner worked as Executive Trainee from 9.1.2006 to 31.7.2008, as executive from 1.6.2009 to 31.10.2014 and as Manager from 1.11.2014 to 18.7.2017. That means as on 27.01.2016, the last date fixed for receipt of application, as seen from Annexure I, his experience as Manager was only from 01.11.2014 to 27.01.2016 i.e for about 15 months, about 8 months in Harrison Malayalam as Assistant Manager, covered by Ext.P14, and as Assistant Manager in HORTICOP for about 2 years and 3 months from
15
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
14.9.98 to 11.12.2000, covered by Ext.P13 i.e, about 4 years. That would show that the petitioner was not qualified even after reckoning his experience as Assistant Manager. Moreover, these certificates including those issued in 2017 are produced before this Court, instead of producing it at the time of selection. Therefore, even without going into the question whether the post was liable to be abolished and was not necessary to be filled up, the inclusion of the petitioner, who did not have the requisite experience and who did not produce the requisite certificate before the selection committee, as No.1 in the rank list can only be found illegal. In these circumstances, I find force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the revision of the first notification with an explanation to similar experience as experience in large scale plantations of Tea, cardamom etc. was specified with the intention to give appointment to a particular person.
16
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
included in it to get appointment. Appointment can be made only of persons who are having qualification, in case there is requirement of a person to man the vacant post. The petitioner who did not have the requisite 9 years' experience therefore is not entitled to get any relief from this Court.
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
17
granted permission by issuing a letter, after the selection was over, after issuing 2 notifications one in 2015 and one in 2016. The 2nd respondent company proceeded with the selection and after drawing a rank list as contained in Ext.P1 addressed the Government with letter Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 also it is stated that the post of Manager (Operations) is one to be filled by promotion of Estate Manager with 5 years' experience. In case there is no eligible candidate from among the Estate Managers/in the absence of eligible candidates for internal recruitment the post can be filled by direct recruitment. Writ petitions were pending before this Court by internal candidates claiming appointment as Manager (Operations). But in the absence of Estate Managers and on account of the age limit prescribed, for direct recruitment, they are ineligible for promotion as well as for direct recruitment. Ext.P3 is the letter informing the 2nd respondent that Government decided to permit the Corporation to make appointment to the post of Manager (Operations), after the election process is over. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no cabinet decision which grants permission to make such an appointment and a Govt. letter cannot take the place of a cabinet decision or an order of the Governor under Article 166. The requirement of prior approval by way of cabinet decision was necessary
18
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
in the case when the Corporation decided to make appointment in a post which was lying vacant since the year 2001 and when Government had by way of a cabinet decision, directed that all posts lying vacant over one year should be abolished forthwith and any exception can be given only by council of Ministers. Ext.R1(a)-G.O.(P)No.1208/2001/Fin dated 22.10.2001 reads as follows:
“The cabinet sub committee on measures in White Paper on State Finances, has recommended among other things that posts kept vacant over one year should be abolished.
Government have accepted the recommendation and order that all posts lying vacant over one year should be abolished forthwith. Council of Ministers alone can grant exceptions where found absolutely necessary.
By Order of Governor
Krishnankutty
Secretary”
But the Director Board did not even state that the post was lying vacant for
all these years when approval was sought as per Ext.P2 letter. In the light of Ext.R1(a) order, the post of Manager (Operations) cannot be filled up in the absence of a cabinet decision granting exception and another decision granting prior approval. As rightly pointed out by Sri.Jaffar Khan, the learned Government Pleader, Ext P3 cannot take the place of a cabinet decision and confer authority on the 2nd respondent to make appointment.
19
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
20
“49. It is trite that appointments cannot be made on political considerations and in violation of the government directions for reduction of establishment expenditure or a prohibition on the filling up of vacant posts or creating new posts including regularisation of daily-waged employees. (See Municipal Corpn., Bilaspur v. Veer Singh Rajput.)
18. Following the judgment in Umarani 's case (supra) the Apex
Court in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh,
(2007) 2 SCC 491, while considering the effect of circular letters issued by
the Government in respect of regularisation, held as follows :
“14. Once it is held that the terms and conditions of service including the recruitment of employees were to be governed either by the statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it must necessarily be held that any policy decision adopted by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would be illegal and without jurisdiction.”
In paragraph 19, following Umarani's case it was held as follows:
“19. In the instant case, the High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a finding that the respondents had a legal right in relation to their claim for regularisation, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted by the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter and, as noticed herein before, even a policy decision adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf would be void. Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. Any appointment, thus, made without following the procedure would be ultra vires.”
It is settled law that it is upto the Government/employer to decide whether a
post has to be filled up or not. As per the Articles of Association there
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N 21
should be prior approval for appointment to the post in managerial cadre. Therefore, the proceedings initiating selection process itself should have been initiated only after getting approval from the Government/Governor, especially when Ext.R1(a) order continues to be in force. In State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 31, the Apex Court while considering the eligibility for exemption, considered the effect of a notification issued by the Government which went contrary to the general industrial policy which was approved by the cabinet held as follows:
“7. xxxxxComing to the second question, namely, the issuance of notification by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, it is true that issuance of such notifications entitles the industrial units to avail of the incentives and benefits declared by the State Government in its own industrial incentive policy. But in exercise of such power, it would not be permissible for the State Government to deny any benefit which is otherwise available to an industrial unit under the incentive policy itself. The industrial incentive policy is issued by the State Government after such policy is approved by the Cabinet itself. The issuance of the notification under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act is by the State Government in the Finance Department which notification is issued to carry out the objectives and the policy decisions taken in the industrial policy itself. In this view of the matter, any notification issued by government order in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, if is found to be repugnant to the industrial policy declared in a government resolution, then the said notification must be held to be bad to that extent. Xxx”
19. Similar issue came up for consideration in Lloyd Electric &
Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P., (2016) 1 SCC 560 , regarding the rate of
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
22
Central Sales Tax, in view of the industrial policy of the State to realise only
@1%. It was held that the department cannot take a decision contrary to the
policy which is taken by the cabinet. In para 14 it was held as follows:
20. In the judgment in Takshila Seas and resorts Pvt Ltd v. State
of Bihar and another: 2016 KHC 4325 , the Patna High Court found that the policy decision of the State Government taken by the council of Ministers would override any notification to the contrary issued by the department. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, in the absence of an exception granted by the council of Ministers, as provided in Ext.R1(a) order and in the absence of prior approval also by way of cabinet decision, the proceedings initiated for filling up the post of Manager (Operations) is illegal.
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N 23
respondents to appoint him on the basis of the rank list. It is settled law that mere inclusion in a rank list does not confer any indefeasible or vested right on a candidate for appointment, as held in a catena of judgments. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India: (1991) 3 SCC 47 :AIR 1991 SC 1612 after discussing a series of earlier judgments held as follows:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner.”
Nigam Ltd. v. Shiv Narain Gupta , 1994 Supp (2) SCC 541. In Balakrushna Behera v. Satya Prakash Dash [(2008) 1 SCC 318] , the Apex Court while considering a case which arose out of a contempt case alleging non-appointment in a University found that prior approval of Government was necessary for all appointments of teaching staff as per Utkal University first Statute and, that too, is subject to availability of funds. According to State Government the posts of Lecturers were abolished in
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
24
view of the re-structuring and no appointment was possible. Following
Sankarsan Das 's case, the Apex Court held that the court cannot by a writ of mandamus direct the State Government to appoint a person against a post which is already abolished. It was held as follows:
“10. The first and foremost question is whether the Court can direct the State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government. Our answer to this question is in the negative. The respondent even after selection has no indefeasible right to be appointed on the post because a selection does not confer a right of getting appointment which can be enforced by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view we are supported by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India: AIR 1991 SC 1612.”
any indefeasible right to be appointed in the post as selection does not confer any vested right to get appointment which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N 25
appointment to the post were without getting prior approval from the Government and as at present the Government is of the view that there is no necessity to fill up the post of Manager (Operations), no relief is liable to be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
W.P.(C) No.1130/2015
26
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
because the post held by him is not the feeder category.
how it should be re-designated are not matters to be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
W.P(C).No.2937/2016
W.P(C) No.20018 of 2016-B, W.P(C).No.1130 of 2015-M & W.P(C).No.2937 of 2016-N
27
sought has become infructuous. The second relief is not liable to be granted
in the light of the judgment in W.P(C).No.1130/2015.
Hence this writ petition is also dismissed.
( P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
Sd/-
rtr/
3 issues framed by the court
Could the first-ranked candidate obtain appointment as Manager (Operations) without the prescribed nine years' experience?
Could the Corporation fill the long-vacant post without a Cabinet exception to the abolition order and prior approval for recruitment?
Could a Commercial Officer outside the feeder category claim promotion or seek judicial intervention for redesignation of the post?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P(c).No.4069/2009Referred¶74
2015 KHC 4585Referred¶74
2010 KHC 401Referred¶74
W.A.2094/2016Referred¶77
M.Ramanathapillai v. State of KeralaRelied on¶108
M.Ramanathapillai v. State of Kerala Air 1973 SC 2641 · Who else cites this
A.Umarani v. Coop. SocietiesRelied on¶109
A.Umarani v. Coop. Societies, (2004) 7 SCC 112 · Who else cites this
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh SinghRelied on¶114
(2007) 2 SCC 491 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd.Relied on¶123
State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 31 · Who else cites this
Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P.Relied on¶126
(2016) 1 SCC 560 · Who else cites this
Takshila Seas and resorts Pvt Ltd v. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶134
2016 KHC 4325
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶137
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India: (1991) 3 SCC 47 :AIR 1991 SC 1612 · Who else cites this
U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Ltd. v. Shiv Narain GuptaRelied on¶140
1994 Supp (2) SCC 541 · Who else cites this
Balakrushna Behera v. Satya Prakash DashRelied on¶140
Balakrushna Behera v. Satya Prakash Dash [(2008) 1 SCC 318] · Who else cites this
Sakeena v. State of Kerala & othersRelied on¶148
Sakeena v. State of Kerala & others : 2014 KHC 557
Usha K. v. State of KeralaRelied on¶148
Usha K. v. State of Kerala: 2008(1) KHC 191
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KOSHY GEORGE
STATE OF KERALA
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
