Kerala High Court
Leena C vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2024
1
W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20589 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
LEENA C., AGED 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE, ASHIANA,
CHALODE P.O., EDAYANNUR, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.
NANDAKUMAR P
AMRUTHA SANJEEV(K/001000/2016)
VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR(K/1018/2016)
MERIN K JIMMY(K/003922/2023)
SILPA SREEKUMAR(K/228/2023)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
3 THE REGISTRAR, RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERIZATION,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
4 JAYAWANTH. L., PRIYADARSHINI, VEEKSHANAM ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SRI.V.VARGHESE
2
W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
SHRI.K.R.GANESH
KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
SHRI.KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY()
K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH STATE ATTORNEY()
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2024,
THE COURT ON 17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has applied for selection and appointment to the post of the District and Sessions Judge by direct recruitment in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service in response to Ext.P1 notification issued by the 3rd respondent herein. Ext.P1 notification issued as above was for filling up of both NCA vacancies and general vacancies. The said notification had notified one vacancy for being filled up by candidates belonging to Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava communities. It also provided for four probable vacancies "for direct recruitment". The petitioner, belonging to the Thiyya community, applied in response to Ext.P1 against both NCA vacancy and the general vacancy. Ext.P2 is the ranked list prepared after the selection process wherein the petitioner was included in the list of eligible candidates against regular vacancies at serial No.12. Ext.P3 is the rotation list obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. As per the above rotation list, Turn No.76 in relation to Muslims was 4 W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156 not filled up, since there were no Muslim candidates. Turn No.77 against open competition has been filled up by an open competition candidate. The next Turn No.78, was one actually reserved for the ETB category. However, the said turn No.78 was passed over temporarily with reference to the provisions of Rule 15(d) of the KS & SSR, 1958, and the appointment was extended to Turn No.79 by accommodating the 4th respondent herein from the open category.
2. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition in the aforesaid circumstance, contending that passing over Turn No.78 and venturing into Turn No.79 open category was not correct.
3. I have heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., the learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri.S.P.Aravindashan Pillai for the 4th respondent herein.
4. The short issue canvassed by the petitioner in this writ petition is the temporary passover of Turn No.78, which, 5 W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156 according to him, was unwarranted. The petitioner contends that there were four notified vacancies in the open category, and hence, the appointment of only three candidates was unsustainable.
5. However, on a perusal of the relevant documents forming part of the paper book, I notice that the number of vacancies available for regular recruitment was only "four". Out of the "four" vacancies as above, one was with reference to Turn No.69 - an NJD vacancy against an open competition candidate in the 2015 selection. In such circumstances, the said vacancy has to be filled up by an open competition candidate alone, as was done in the present case. Thereafter, only three vacancies were remaining. At this juncture, provisions of Rule 15(d) of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short, the KS and SSR) are to be referred to, which reads as under:
"(d) Reservation to a category of posts shall not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which selection is resorted to in a selection year."6
W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156
6. From the above, it is clear that while extending reservation to a category of posts, the same shall not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which selection is resorted to in a selection year. It is in the afore circumstance that respondents 2 and 3 have passed over temporarily Turn No.78, as otherwise, the 50% limit prescribed as above would have been clearly violated. I find no illegality in the afore passing over of Turn No.78 in the case at hand.
7. I also notice that Turn No.78, which is passed over as above, is in no way affecting the claim of ETB communities, since it would be restored in the subsequent selection process.
8. Furthermore, I also take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala [2023 (5) KLT 154], wherein it is held as under:
(iv) In terms of relief, we hold that it would be contrary to the public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six years.
Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified and have been serving the 7 W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156 district judiciary of the state. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest. It is noticed that the 4th respondent herein has already been appointed against Turn No.79 and he joined duty on 24.08.2019. The notice of this writ petition was served upon him only in July, 2020. Therefore, in my opinion, the observations made by the Apex Court in the afore judgment would apply in the case at hand also.
On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition. Resultantly, the captioned writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
8
W.P(C) No.20589 of 2019 2024:KER:95156
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20589/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
21.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST RECEIVED BY WAY
OF THE INFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHTS TO
INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ROTATION LIST AND NOTE APPENDED
THERETO.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
1.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR AN
REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN MALIK MAZHAR
SULTAN'S CASE.