IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1840 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.497/2006 IN WP(C) NO..24770/05 Dated 04/07/2006 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- M/S. KERALA STATE SERICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC., SERIFED SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A.SANTHOSH, KALATHIPARAMBU, THIRUMALA BHAGAM P.O., THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. BIJU K., "SREEKRISHNA", NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 5. V.G.SHAJI, BEENA VIHAR, MEENADU, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., SOUTH PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 6. R.SREELATHA, AMBANATTU VEEDU, KOTTAKKADAKAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVACIS- R1 & R2 SRI.SANDESH RAJA – R1 & R2 ADV.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R3 TO R6 SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR FOR R3 TO R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008 ALONG WITH WA NO. 1916 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.NOS.1840 & 1916 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: Respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.1916/2006 and 3 to 6 in W.A.No.1840/2006 were selected as Technical Assistants in SERIFED on the basis of a notification, which was given wide publicity. SERIFED was formed by the Government as an Apex Society having jurisdiction throughout Kerala. Before SERIFED was formed, sericulture activities of the State were under the Khadi and Village Industries Board, which was making appointments on contract basis to different posts available in the SERIFED. It was after terminating the services of the employees by the Board on 31.7.1994 that the SERIFED was registered by order dated 20.9.1994. After the formation of SERIFED, the respondents were selected to the post of Technical Assistants in SERIFED. One candidate challenged the appointment to the post of Assistant Sericulture Officer alleging nepotism and corruption in the matter of appointment. This Court initially cancelled the appointments. But later the matter reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the W.A.NOS.1840 & 1916/06 . 2 matter to this Court for fresh adjudication. The respondents were also got themselves impleaded as additional respondents by Ext.P1 order dated 15th January 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter only for consideration of the case after hearing the affected parties as they were not heard. After the remand was made by Ext.P1 judgment, the matter was delegated to the Registrar. In other wards a Division Bench of this court directed the Registrar to decide the matter after hearing of all the parties which resulted in Ext.P4 order. The Registrar considered the case of 125 persons attended in the hearing and their case was considered by the Registrar and the Registrar felt that 8 candidates are entitled to be considered to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers as they were working in SERIFED for the last 8 years by Ext.P4 order. Since the respondents were not considered, they again approached this Court and this Court directed the Registrar to consider their case also. The Registrar considered the matter and by Ext.P7 held that they are also entitled to get the appointment and directed the SERIFED to appoint them in the post of Technical Assistants in accordance with the ranked list by Ext.P7 order. The SERIFED challenged that order. The petitioners wanted implementation of the same. The learned Single judge by the impugned judgment found that the Registrar has earlier by Ext.P4 accommodated 8 candidates. SHERIFED should accommodate W.A.NOS.1840 & 1916/06 . 3 these candidates also and therefore directed implementation of Ext.P7 and rejected the petition of SERIFED to quash Ext.P7. SHERIFED is challenging the above judgment in these appeals. 2. The appellants contended that the Registrar was asked only to consider the matter. The Registrar in Ext.P4 considered the matter and taking into account the fact that 8 candidates are working in the SERIFED for 8 years, they are entitled to be appointed. The Registrar also found that no proper interview or test was conducted in making select list. Therefore, the Registrar did not approve the way in which select list was prepared. Out of 125 candidates considered by the respondents, only 8 persons were working for 8 years in the SERIFED and those 8 persons were allowed to continue but select list was not approved by Ext.P7. their contention alone was allowed. As far as the party respondents are concerned they were not working in the SERIFED. When stay was obtained in the earlier writ petitions against Ext.P4 order, they did not contest the matter and the matter was ultimately remanded by the Supreme Court. When the matter was remanded, they got themselves impleaded. Their case cannot be equated with 8 persons who were already working in SERIFED. The Registrar has considered the matter. In Ext.P7 order, the Registrar found that select list was in order as found in Ext.P4 and since W.A.NOS.1840 & 1916/06 . 4 lower rank holders are appointed, directed to appointment the respondents as Technical Assistants immediately. That is contrary to Ext.P4 order, therein it was stated that select list was not prepared according to law, but only on the ground that 8 persons were previously working, they were allowed to work. But in Ext.P4 there is a definite finding that selection list challenged was not correct. Ext.P7 order is just contrary to the above. Ext.P7 order and the impugned judgment precisely on the basis that in Ext.P4 order, select list was approved. 3. Apart from that, respondents were selected as Technical Assistants. Now, SERIFED's case is that they are reducing the staff strength of their establishment and there is no vacancy to accommodate any persons. They are on the verge of closure due to financial problems. It is stated that apart from the persons ordered to be appointed in Ext.P4, nobody was again appointed. According to SERIFED, it is over crowded with staff members. They have decided to reduce administration expenses and also not to make any further appointments. It is also stated that no appointments were made in the category of Technical Assistants Thereafter. If there are no vacancies, this Court cannot direct the candidates from the select list to be appointed. Even if there are persons in the select list, they have no vested right to get appointed W.A.NOS.1840 & 1916/06 . 5 when there are no vacancies. Nobody was appointed overtaking the seniority list in the disputed rank list in the category of Technical Assistants. Even if there are sanctioned vacancies, it is for the employer to decide whether sanctioned vacancy to be filled up or not. Therefore, direction of the learned Single Judge to appoint the writ petitioners immediately (respondents 1 to 3 in W.A. No. 1916/2006 and 3 to 6 in W.A.No.1840 of 2006) is set aside. But in view of Ext.P7 order, if any technical assistants are appointed in the SERIFED, they should be appointed as they were included in the rank list along with the persons who were selected as per Ext.P4. We also notice that nobody else has presently approached this Court even after the lapse of years of the selection. Hence, this direction is applicable only to the writ petitioners. Both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl W.A.NOS.1840 & 1916/06 . 6