Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs Akhilesh V.S. and Others

Civil Appeal No(s). 3346 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8395 OF 2019 (Diary No.21878/2018)]

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS AKHILESH V. S. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) With Civil Appeal No(s). 3347 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8396 OF 2019 (Diary No.21883/2018)]

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

P. R. BEEDHAVA ROY AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)

With Civil Appeal No(s). 3348 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8397 OF 2019 (Diary No.21886/2018)]

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS Signature Not Verified

SUBHASH KIZHAKKE VEETIL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2019.04.01 16:56:04 IST Reason:

1 JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted. I.A. No.137467 of 2018, application for

impleadment, is allowed.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction to make

appointments against 97 vacancies on the post of Blacksmith

Grade II. The sanctioned cadre strength of the post was 800, of

which 395 vacancies were already filled by substantive

appointments. The appellant made a requisition for 405

vacancies to the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Commission’), which forwarded a

recommendation with regard to 351 vacancies initially, and later

for another six posts followed by twenty­three more against non­

joining vacancies. The facts, for the purpose of convenience,

shall be taken primarily from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)

Diary No.21878 of 2018. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being

applicants, were empaneled at serial nos. 284 and 294

2 respectively in the rank list. Appointments were made till rank

No. 278 only. The rank list has expired on 21.10.2017. The

respondents did not allege discrimination or arbitrariness by

violation of the rank list in making appointments. The High

Court opined that the appellant was obliged to make

appointments against requisitioned vacancies including those

that may have arisen subsequently, but during the life of the

rank list.

4. The short question arising for consideration in these

appeals is whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus

to make appointments because vacancies may exist.

Additionally, whether mandamus can be issued to make

appointments from the panel on vacancies which may have

arisen subsequently due to superannuation etc. during the life of

the rank list. The question assumes significance in view of the

stand of the appellant that it did not wish to make any further

appointments due to a financial crunch and a skewed bus to

passenger ratio, and for which purpose it had also appointed a

committee to recommend remedial measures.

3

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and opine that

the order of the High Court is unsustainable. The cadre

strength has rightly been held not to be a relevant consideration.

The High Court has erred in issuance of mandamus to fill up a

total of 97 vacancies, including those arising subsequently but

during the life of the rank list. Vacancies which may have arisen

subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition

and necessarily had to be part of another selection process. The

law stands settled that mere existence of vacancies or

empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to

appointment. The employer also has the discretion not to fill up

all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and

germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness. The appellant

contends a financial crunch along with a skewed staff/bus ratio

which are definitely valid and genuine grounds for not making

further appointments. The court cannot substitute its views

over that of the appellant, much less issue a mandamus

imposing obligations on the appellant corporation which it is

unable to meet.

4

6. Suffice to observe from Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs. State of

Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532:

“12. In Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171, it was held that (para 10) merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give the candidate an indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. It is always open to the Government not to fill up the vacancies, however such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the decision is found to be based on some valid reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies…”

7. Resultantly, we are unable to sustain the orders of the High

Court which are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.

…………...................J.

[Arun Mishra]

…………...................J.

[Navin Sinha] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 01, 2019.

5