Kerala High Court: Appointing Authority Has Every Right To Decide That A Particular No. Of Vacancies Should Not Be Filled On Reasonable Grounds

The Kerala High Court held that the appointing authority has every right to decide that a particular number of vacancies should not be filled, on reasonable and genuine grounds.

The Court held thus in a batch of Original Petitions filed by the State against the Common Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which directed the Government to redetermine the cadre strength in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 4 read with Rule 8 of the Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Rules, 2018.

A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “It is well-settled law that an appointing authority may for good and sufficient reasons take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies even if a valid rank list is in force. The appointing authority has every right to decide that a particular number of vacancies should not be filled, on reasonable and genuine grounds. The action of the appointing authority in that regard can be challenged before a court of law only if the exercise of the appointing authority is arbitrary, unreasonable or manifestly illegal.”

The Bench added that a direction to fill up vacancies from an expired rank list cannot be issued merely on the ground that the appointing authority earlier failed to comply with the direction of the Court to report the vacancies.

Government Pleader Sunilkumar Kuriakose represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J. and Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The candidates included in the rank list for appointment in the KAS Junior Time Scale (Trainees) approached the KAT, challenging the Government Order by which the cadre strength of KAS Officers (Junior Time Scale) was fixed at 105 by the Government. According to the candidates, the fixation of the cadre strength at 105 is in violation of the KAS Rules and the actual figure is much higher. The KAT directed the Government to redetermine the cadre strength in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 4 read with Rule 8 of the KAS Rules. The Tribunal further directed that the Government shall take steps to make appointments for the remaining vacancies as against the vacancies already reported to the Public Service Commission (PSC) pursuant to the interim direction of the Tribunal.

Later, the Tribunal disposed of certain other similar applications based on the said Order. In 2019, PSC invited applications for filling up ‘anticipated vacancies’ in the above post and later, it published rank list which was valid for one year. A total number of 1258 posts were included in Table I of Schedule II in the KAS Rules. However, as per the KAS Amendment Rules, 2019, the Government reduced the number of posts in the said Schedule to 1206. As per the Explanatory Note to the Amendment Rules, 2019 the said amendment was made to exclude certain posts that were inadvertently included in the KAS Rules. Later, the Government fixed the cadre strength of the KAS entry level at 105, which was under challenge before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments of the parties, noted, “The amendment of the KAS Rules might require some time and in the meanwhile, if the candidates included in the rank list are appointed against the vacancies mistakenly included in the Schedule, it would result in unintended consequences, the Government clarifies.”

The Court said that it cannot hold that the Government acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.

“Though we have found that the Government is not justified in contending that the fixation of the cadre strength of KAS posts is its prerogative, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government has shown genuine and sufficient reasons for not appointing more than 105 candidates from the rank list”, it remarked.

The Court was of the opinion that to rectify the anomalies in the Schedule of KAS Rules, Rule amendment is required and the same is not so far in existence and at the same time, the Government being the appointing authority, can very well take a decision that appointment should not be made to the posts which are inadvertently or mistakenly included in the Schedule.

“That apart, Rule 4, a substantive provision of the KAS Rules, declares that the entry level KAS post is a 2nd Gazetted Post. Then, if the Schedule, a subordinate part of the Rule, contains certain categories of posts which do not fit in the meaning attributed by the substantive provision, the appointing authority can proceed further with recruitment as guided by the main clause. For this reason, we also find no purpose in interfering with Annexure A3 order”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court further took note of the fact that the rank list had expired much before the date of the impugned Order.

“Indeed, in certain cases, the Tribunal has the authority to issue a direction to the appointing authority to fill up the vacancies from an expired rank list, when the appointing authority did not report the vacancy despite the interim order issued by the Tribunal while the list was in force”, it also said.

The Court observed that although the Government reported the vacancies pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, it did so only after the expiry of the rank list, albeit with a rider that the reporting would have retrospective effect.

“… we find no justification in issuing the impugned order. It is liable to be set aside”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petitions and set aside the impugned Orders.

Cause Title- State of Kerala & Anr. v. Jayesh K. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:29425)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Government Pleader Sunilkumar Kuriakose

Respondents: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J., Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan, Advocates Nabil Khader, K.R. Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, and Sreelekshmi A.S.

Click here to read/download the Judgment