Kerala High Court
Kerala State Board Transport ... vs Duglus Charley on 25 August, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 3RD BHADRA, 1942
WA.No.262 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/11/2019 IN WP(C) 33562/2018(U) OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NO 1 & 2:
1 KERALA STATE BOARD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3:
1 DUGLUS CHARLEY
S/O. CHARLEY JOSEPH,
GRACE, PADINJARE VADAKKOTTU,
P O VENGERI, KANNADIKKAL, KOZHIKODE-673010.
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
R1 BY ADV. KUM.A.ARUNA
R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.08.2020, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A.No.262//2020
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of August 2020 Shaffique, J This appeal has been filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which direction had been issued to the KSRTC to appoint the petitioner as Guard Grade II (Ex-servicemen) in terms of Ext.P3 advice memo issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). While impugning the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, though a person's name appeared in the rank list, he does not have any legal right to get appointed. The position is very clear in the judgment of the Apex Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Another v. Akhilesh V.S. & Others (2019) 14 SCC 96 wherein the Apex Court held at paragraphs 3 and 4 as under:
"3. The short question arising for consideration in these appeals is whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus to make appointments because vacancies may exist. Additionally, whether mandamus can be issued to make appointments from the panel on vacancies which may have arisen subsequently due to superannuation, etc. during the life of the rank list. The question assumes significance in view of the stand of the appellant that it did not wish to make any further appointments due to a financial crunch and a skewed bus to passenger ratio, and for which purpose it had also appointed a committee to recommend remedial measures.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and opine that the order of the High Court is unsustainable. The cadre strength has rightly been held not to be a relevant consideration. The High 3 W.A.No.262//2020 Court has erred in issuance of mandamus to fill up a total of 97 vacancies, including those arising subsequently but during the life of the rank list. Vacancies which may have arisen subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition and necessarily had to be part of another selection process. The law stands settled that mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment. The employer also has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness. The appellant contends a financial crunch along with a skewed staff/bus ratio which are definitely valid and genuine grounds for not making further appoints. The Court cannot substitute its views over that of the appellant, much less issue a mandamus imposing obligations on the appellant Corporation which it is unable to meet."
2. But, what we find from the records is that the notification has been issued for one NCA vacancy for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian (Ex-service men) and advice has been issued by the KPSC as well. Under such circumstances, denial of appointment, that too in a single post will not render much hardship to KSRTC. Moreover, the petitioner is an Ex-service men who requires special consideration. Under such circumstances, we don't find any ground to interfere in the matter.
Writ appeal is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
kp True copy GOPINATH P., JUDGE
P.A. To Judge