IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 51 of 2010() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.30734/2009 Dated 13/11/2009 APPELLANT(S): NOT PARTIES IN THE WPC: 1. PADMARAJ EDATHODY, STATISTICAL INSPECTOR TALUK STATISTICAL OFFICE, QUILANDY. 2. B.BEDDYSON, STATISTICAL INSPECTOR TALUK STATISTICAL OFFICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, ATTINGAL. 3. S.R.RAJANI KUMARI, RESEARCH ASSISTANT, DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC: 1. ABHINESH S.S., CHEDI ROAD, UPPILIKAI P.O., NILESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. RAKESH KUMAR K., KUNNATH HOUSE, MALAYAMMA P.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS & STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA ECONOMICS & STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 5. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-R1,R2 SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS-R3,R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 51 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants were not parties to the Writ Petition. They are presently working as Statistical Inspector/Research Assistant in the Kerala Statistics and Economics Subordinate Service. Their next promotion post is Research Officer. The Public Service Commission has published the rank list for appointment to the said post on 18.9.2008. Two persons included in the said rank list approached this Court complaining that the available vacancies have not been reported. The Special Rules prescribing the qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Research Officer were repealed and new rules were promulgated with effect from 20.2.2009. As per the old rules, the ratio between direct recruitment and promotion was 1:1. As per the new rules, which came into force on 20.2.2009, the ratio is 1:2, that is, the quota for direct recruitment is reduced. The writ petitioners claimed that the vacancies W.A. NO.51/2010 2 which arose before 20.2.200 should be filled up in accordance with the ratio of 1:1, having regard to the cadre strength. The new ratio could be applied only to the vacancies that arose after the said date. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, practically upholding the above claim of the writ petitioners. But, in the judgment, there is a mistake concerning the ratio that has been introduced with effect from 20.2.2009. As per Ext.P2 Special Rules, the ratio is 1:2 between direct recruitment and promotees. But, in the judgment it is mentioned as 2:1. 2. The appellants herein preferred this appeal claiming that all vacancies which are available after 20.2.2009, irrespective of whether they arose before that date, should be filled up in accordance with the new ratio and any direction issued to the contrary is unsustainable. We find it very difficult to accept the said contention. But, Sri. N. Sugathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants points out that the principle that the vacancies should be filled up with reference to the law as applicable on the date of occurrence of the vacancies is inapplicable if the entire rules are repealed and new rules are introduced. We find that the said contention is plainly untenable. The principle that the vacancies have to be filled up with reference to the law applicable as on the date of occurrence of the vacancies will apply in the case of amendment as well as repeal. We find W.A. NO.51/2010 3 nothing wrong with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the direction may be misinterpreted to fill up the vacancies without any reference to the cadre strength. This submission is seriously disputed by the learned senior Government Pleader. According to him, if the vacancies are filled up in the ratio applicable at the relevant time disregarding the cadre strength, it would violate Rule 5 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. We notice that the apprehension raised by the appellants is unfounded. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO.51/2010 4 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO.51/2010 JUDGMENT 13th January, 2010