Geetha T.K. and Others vs State of Kerala and Others

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—Interference declined by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1799 of 2014, with regard to the prayers raised to facilitate advice and appointment of the petitioners in respect of the quota earmarked for direct recruits from Annexure-A1 rank list, made the applicants to approach this Court by way of the present original petition.

The sum and substance of the case projected before this Court is that, the petitioners on coming out successful in the selection conducted by the PSC to the post of HSA (Natural Science), came to be enlisted in Annexure-A1, which was published on 26/06/2004 and it was valid till 25/06/2007. By virtue of the mandate of Annexure-A2 Circular No. A1/25598/2006/DPI dated 27/04/2006, a quota has been prescribed for appointment from various categories, in the ratio of 50:30:10:10 among direct recruitment, inter-district transfer, promotion of primary teachers and appointment by transfer respectively. Contending that the prescribed quota of 50% is not satisfied in the case of direct recruitment and the vacancies are not being reported to the PSC, the petitioners and some others approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 9673 of 2007 wherein an interim order was passed to report ''ten'' vacancies more, to the PSC with a rider that appointment shall be made after obtaining further orders from this Court. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Tribunal, where it was re-numbered as T.A. No. 69 of 2013. Pleadings were completed from the part of the respondents, pointing out that all the available vacancies including the NJD vacancies in respect of the direct recruitment were notified to the PSC and that appointments were given. It was after considering the facts and figures, that interference was declined and the O.A. was dismissed, vide Ext. P3 order, recording the factual details as to the vacancy position. It has been observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the said verdict, that no rejoinder was filed by the applicants and that the vacancies which were available after expiry of the rank list on 25/06/2007 could not have been filled up by giving advice to anybody included in the said rank list. This in turn is sought to be challenged in the original petition.

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 14/07/2015, some discrepancies with regard to the pleadings were noted; especially in connection with the number of vacancies available and reported as contained in the statement/affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the PSC. It was accordingly that an order was passed on that date, which reads as follows:

"The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that glaring discrepancies and inconsistencies are seen, from the counter affidavit filed from the part of the Government earlier and the subsequent reply statement filed before the Tribunal. So also, the facts and figures do not reconcile with the counter affidavit filed from the part of the PSC.

The learned Government Pleader seeks for time to file an affidavit pointing out the correct position, particularly with regard to the actual number of vacancies, the vacancies reported to the PSC, the advices obtained and the particulars of persons who have been given orders of appointment, also clarifying whether any vacancy which could have been filled up by direct recruitment as per the quota was available as on 25/06/2007, the date on which the rank list got expired.

Post after two weeks.

H/o."

The learned Government Pleader submits that, pursuant to the said direction, a detailed affidavit has been filed by the second respondent explaining the correct factual position.

Heard both the sides in detail.

The position made clear by the second respondent as per the affidavit dated 22/07/2015, as contained in paragraphs 3 and 4, is in the following terms:

"3. It is hereby submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent on 22.05.2007 in O.A. No. 1799 of 2014 by stating that 37 vacancies arose during the period from 16.06.2004 to 19.05.2007. Out of which 22 vacancies were reported to the Public Service Commission during the period from 26.06.2004 to 19.05.2007. The details are given below:--

Out of the above 37 vacancies 22 vacancies were reported and appointed as mentioned below.

An additional affidavit has been filed on 18.07.2007 by pointing out the fact that 12 more vacancies arose due to retirement and promotion. Out of the above 12 vacancies one vacancy was filled up by absorbing one H.S.A. (Natural Science) which became excess on the basis of Staff fixation. Hence, the vacancy position was reduced to 11. Out of the 11 vacancies, 5 vacancies were reported to the PSC being 50% for direct recruitment. Hence, 31 fresh vacancies and additional 11 vacancies which arose subsequently were taken together and the total number of vacancies was 42 (31 + 11). Out of the 42 vacancies, 21 vacancies (16+5) were filled by direct recruitment. In addition to the 21 vacancies filled up through direct recruitment, 3 NJD vacancies from the previous ranked list and 2 by transfer vacancies were also filled up by direct recruitment. Altogether 26 candidates were posted from the rank list of direct recruits. There were no candidates in the "By transfer quota" and the vacant two posts were also added to the direct recruitment quota. Out of the 26 appointments made in the post of H.S.A. (Natural Science) 25 candidates joined duty. All available vacancies of H.S.A. (Natural Science) were reported to the PSC. There is no basis for the contention that 49 vacancies were available. Only 42 vacancies were available and 50% of vacancies earmarked for direct recruits were given. 50% is calculated to the 42 fresh vacancies."

This Court finds that the stand taken by the second respondent, that no further vacancy was available to be reported as on the date of expiry of the rank list, i.e., 25/06/2007 does not call for any interference. The original petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that glaring discrepancies and inconsistencies are seen, from the counter affidavit filed from the part of the Government earlier and the subsequent reply statement filed before the Tribunal. So also, the facts and figures do not reconcile with the counter affidavit filed from the part of the PSC.

The learned Government Pleader seeks for time to file an affidavit pointing out the correct position, particularly with regard to the actual number of vacancies, the vacancies reported to the PSC, the advices obtained and the particulars of persons who have been given orders of appointment, also clarifying whether any vacancy which could have been filled up by direct recruitment as per the quota was available as on 25/06/2007, the date on which the rank list got expired.

Post after two weeks.