Kerala High Court
Travancore Devaswom Board And Ors. vs P. Savithri And Ors. on 10 January, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)ILLJ276KER
JUDGMENT Malimath, C.J.
1. These two appeals are by the Travancore Devaswom Board challenging the common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in O.P.Nos.2269 and 2864 of 1986. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows: The Travancore Devaswom Board invited applications for filling up 7 posts of L.D.Clerks and other posts by notifications Ext.P-1 dated 19th April, 1984. Large number of applications were received. The applicants were subjected to written and oral test and a select list of 150 candidates came to be made on 6th April 1985 stipulating that the said list shall remain in force for a period of one year. Before the said period of one year expired, seventy persons from the select list were offered appointment as L.D. Clerks as against 7 that were notified. The contesting respondents in these two cases came to this court with their writ petitions complaining about the stipulation that the select list shall remain in force for a period of one year. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petitions and declared that the stipulation fixing the life of the select list as one year is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned single judge has taken the view that there is no justification for reducing the period of validity of the select list from two years to one year. It is on that basis that the learned single judge has directed that the select list shall remain in force for a period of two years from 6th April, 1985. It is the said decision that is challenged in these two appeals.
2. The principal question for consideration is as to whether the Devaswom Board acted arbitrarily when it fixed one year as the life of the select list prepared on the 6th of April, 1985. It is not the case of either of the parties that there is any statutory provision which fixes the period of validity of the select list. It was however brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the Board that after the disposal of the writ petitions, the Devaswom Board has framed rules by notification dated 9th April 1987, prescribing in rule 9 that the validity of the rank list shall be one year from the date of publication of the same.
3. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, it cannot be contended that fixation of one year as the life of the select list is bad, as being contrary to any specific statutory provision. The learned single judge has taken the view that the Devaswom Board having fixed two years as the life of the select list in the year 1981, could not have reduced the life to one year in the year 1984 without any justifiable reasons. Firstly it has to be pointed out that there is no such fixation of the life of select list to be prepared by the Devaswom Board from time to time in respect of selection to be made to various categories of posts. What was actually relied upon is not a general rule fixing two years as the life of the select list. What was relied upon is the fact that the life of the select list prepared in the year 1981 for the purpose of filling up the posts of Overseers, was fixed as two years. It is therefore clear that a wrong assumption has been made that there was a general fixation of two years as the life of the select list made by the Board in the year 1981. Even assuming for the sake of argument that in the year 1981 the Board had fixed two years as the life of the select list, that by itself does not mean that the Board could not have reduced it from two years to one year. The basic question for examination is as to whether the fixation of the life of the list as one year is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the life of the select list is not limited, it would remain in force for an indefinite length of time, may be for several years. One of the principles to be borne in mind in this behalf is that the object of selection is to secure the best talent for the services. Another principle to be borne in mind is of giving equality of opportunity in the matter of appointment to all those who possess eligibility for such appointment. If the life of the list is not limited to a certain period, it would mean that other persons who become eligible during the subsequent years will be deprived of the right to offer themselves as candidates and the authorities would also be denied the opportunity of making a choice of the best talent available during the subsequent years. That is why in the realm of service law, fixation of the life of select list has been consistently recognised. The Supreme Court which had occasion to examine this aspect of the matter has observed in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Ors. (AIR)1987 SC 847. as follows:-
"The reason underlying the limitation of the period of a list for one year is obviously to ensure that other qualified persons are not deprived of their chances of applying for the posts in the succeeding years and being selected for appointment".
It follows from this observation of the Supreme Court that there is good reason for limiting the period of the list to one year. In the absence of any statutory limitation, as the Devaswom Board has been conferred with the power of making selection for appointment to the various services of the Board, it must be presumed that it possesses incidental power of fixing the life of the select list prepared for appointment to various services. That principle has been recognised by a Division Bench decision of this Court in O.P.Nos.2848/83 and 3790/83. That was a case in which this Court examined the validity of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure made by the Public Service Commission. The contention urged was that the Public Service Commission is required to be consulted under Article 320 of the Constitution in the matter of appointment to public services and as the power of the Public Service Commission in this behalf is to be consulted, it has got the power to prescribe that a rank list prepard by it shall be in force for a limited period. Rule 13 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure which came up for consideration in the said cases provides that the ranked lists published by the Public Service Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of two years whichever is earlier. In that case this court has observed as follows:
"These rules are framed by the Public Service Commission in exercise of its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution. The Public Service Commission under Article 320 is required to be consulted in the matter of appointment to the services of the State. The Public Service Commission which has been constitutionally empowered to tender advice in the matter of appointment and to conduct examinations for appointment to the service of the State, is entitled to regulate its own procedure, so long as the procedure laid down for the purpose of carrying out of the object of Article 320 is just and reasonable and is not opposed to any other constitutional provisions. As the Public Service Commission is required to be consulted in the matter of appointment, when it is consulted it is entitled to tender its advice and give a list of names of persons selected for appointment with the condition that the said list shall be operated by the State for the specified period. Such a power is incidental or ancillary power which the Public Service Commission can exercise for the purpose of discharging it constitutional oblications under Article 320 of the Constitution".
(Underlining ours) On the same analogy, the Devaswom Board which has the power of making appointment to various services of the Board, must be deemed to have incidental power of fixing the life of the select list, so long as such fixation is not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable or opposed to any statutory or constitutional provision. As already stated, there is no constitutional or statutory bar which is relied upon by the respondents against the fixation of the period of the list. The Supreme Court has recognised one year as a reasonable period. Rule 13 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure also in substance indicates that the life of the list primarily is one year, which, of course, can remain in force for a period of two years, if no list is prepared within a period of one year. Thus we find that it is a recognised pattern to fix one year as the life of the list. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the stipulation making the life of the list as one year cannot be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary.
4. The learned single Judge has adverted to the decision of a learned single Judge in O.P. No.4628/84 wherein the limiting of the life of the list by the Tranvancore Devaswom Board for a period of two years was challenged. The learned single judge has observed that as the challenge to fixation of two years failed in that case, it leads to an inference that alteration of the said period from two years to one year is unreasonable and arbitrary. With respect, we find it difficult to agree with this reasoning. If this court has held that the fixation of life of the select list as two years is reasonable, it does not automatically follow that fixation of one year is arbitrary or unreasonable. Besides, it has to be pointed out that the reading of the judgment of the learned single judge makes it clear that the reasonableness of the fixation of the period as two years was really not a matter which was discussed in the said judgment. The contention raised therein was that there should not be any limit in regard to the life of the select list is concerned. The question as to whether the fixation of the life of the select list as two years is reasonable or not was not a matter which directly came up for examination in that case. Far from supporting the respondents, the said decision supports the case of the appellants, for, the learned single Judge has declared in the said decision that the Devaswom Board has the necessary power to fix the period of the life of the select list. As -already stated, that case pertains to fixation of two years as the life of the select list of Overseers. We are satisfied with the explanation offered in regard to the fixation of two years, so far as Overseers are concerned. It was not easy to get sufficient number of qualified persons and that therefore a longer period of two years was felt appropriate at that stage. On a consideration of all releant facts and the pattern available in the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and the decision of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in taking the view that one year is a reasonable period for the life of the select list. Hence now that the one year fixed as life of the list expired on 5th April 1986, the question of making any appointment in pursuance of the said list does not arise.
5. For the reasons stated above, these two appeals are allowed, the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.