Candidates In Rank List Have No Indefeasible Right To Appointment: Kerala High Court Upholds Abolition Of 34 Office Attendant Posts
The Bench held that valid abolition of posts cannot be challenged by candidates merely because they are included in a recruitment rank list.
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that inclusion in a select or rank list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, while upholding the decision of the High Court administration and the State Government to abolish 34 posts of Office Attendant (OA).
The appellants had participated in a recruitment process initiated through a notification issued in December 2019, which originally notified 24 vacancies for the post of Office Attendant. The notification also stipulated that vacancies arising during the currency of the rank list would be filled from the same list.
Although hundreds of candidates were eventually advised and appointed from the rank list, the appellants contended that they were denied appointment because 34 available vacancies were abolished by the Government at the request of the High Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji while dismissing a batch of writ appeals filed by candidates who were awaiting appointment from an existing rank list, observed, “…the appellants - who are included in Ext.P2 Rank List - do not obtain any indefeasible right to be appointed; and when this judicial declaration remains, obviously they can only claim appointments to vacancies that are available. By the time their turn was to arise, the 34 vacancies were abolished; and, obviously, therefore, they could not be accommodated any further”.
Advocate Sivan Madathil appeared for the petitioners and Advocate S. Radhakrishnan appeared for the respondents.
The candidates argued that the abolition of the posts was arbitrary and defeated the purpose of maintaining a rank list. They further relied on a subsequent recruitment notification issued in May 2024, contending that the very same 34 vacancies had been re-notified while the earlier rank list remained in force.
Rejecting these submissions, the Bench held that the abolition of the posts was a policy decision taken by the High Court and accepted by the Government. The Court found no allegation or evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or any other vitiating factor in the decision. It noted that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend to reassessing such policy choices in the absence of illegality.
“We have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions, particularly since the issues relate to the urge for employment of citizens. This desire is not something that can be brushed aside lightly; however, it requires to be remembered that any appointment can be made only in accordance with law and within the parameters of the statutory provisions”, the Bench had said.
The Court also clarified that the vacancies notified in the subsequent recruitment process were not the abolished posts but anticipated future vacancies that would arise after the expiry of the existing rank list. According to the High Court's pleadings, the first such vacancy was expected to arise only on August 31, 2024, more than two months after the earlier rank list had expired on June 16, 2024.
Holding that candidates in a rank list acquire only a right to be considered against available vacancies and not a vested right to appointment, the Division Bench concluded that the appellants could not claim appointment once the relevant posts had been validly abolished. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Sreeparvathy R.S & Ors. v. High Court Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:35338)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Sivan Madathil, Advocate.
Respondents: S. Radhakrishnan, Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, GP, Advocates.