Kerala High Court
Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicles vs State Of Kerala Represened By Its on 10 June, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34847 of 2009(A)
1. KERALA ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES
... Petitioner
2. SURESH.K.R., ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES
3. RAJAN.N.R., ASSISTANT MOTOR INSPECTOR,
4. SAJU.A. BECKER, ASSISTANT MOTOR
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.34847 of 2009 (A)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P3 is the notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for filling up the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Applications were invited from qualified SC/ST candidates and the method of appointment was direct recruitment. Based on Ext.P3, Ext.P5 ranked list was published.
2. The 1st petitioner is an Association of Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors and petitioners 2 to 4 are Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Their contention is that the cadre strength of Motor Vehicle Inspectors is 126 and the actual strength is 124. Referring to Ext.P2 seniority list, they contend that there are 15 Scheduled Caste members and 3 Scheduled Tribe members in position. Therefore, they say that SC/ST members are adequately represented in the service and therefore, Ext.P3 notification for conducting special recruitment as contemplated under Rule 17A of Part-II KS&SSR was illegal. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the vacancy now available should be filled up from Ext.P6 select list WP(C) No.34847/2009 -2- of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors or else the post should be filled up by making appointment by by-transfer. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed challenging the very invocation of Rule 17A of Part-II KS&SSR.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that it was on the basis of the review of Staff position and representation of SC/ST in the gazetted category in the Motor Vehicles Department as on 01/01/2004 and 01/01/2005, that the Government, by invoking Rule 17A of Part-II KS&SSR, have ordered to reserve and report two posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors for appointment through Special Recruitment; one exclusively from ST and other from SC/ST (as on the review of 01/01/2004) and again one post of Motor Vehicle Inspector and one post of Senior Superintendent from SC/ST category (as on the review of 01/01/2005). It is therefore stated that the reservation of 3 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and one post of Senior Superintendent, which are the lowest posts in gazetted category in Motor Vehicles Department, were not on account of dearth of representation of SC/ST candidates in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector, but the staff position and representation of SC/ST in the gazetted category WP(C) No.34847/2009 -3- in the Motor Vehicles Department as a whole. It is further stated that the reservation and reporting of vacancies under Special Recruitment have been ordered on account of the inadequate representation of SC/ST candidates in gazetted category in Motor Vehicles Department.
4. A reading of the writ petition shows that the petitioners have proceeded on the basis that there is adequate representation of SC/ST members in the category of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and therefore, the Special Recruitment set up by Ext.P3 invoking Rule 17A of Part-II, KS&SSR is illegal. On the other hand, the counter affidavit discloses that the recruitment was resorted on account of inadequate representation of SC/ST members among the gazetted Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department. There is no affidavit in reply contradicting the averments made in the counter affidavit.
In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents deserves acceptance. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg