Case: State of Kerala and Ors Vs. T. Raju and Ors

3. Advice and appointment are two different events. Advice is based on the list prepared by the Public Service Commission on the basis of comparative merit in the selection and on the basis of principles of communal rotation. Appointment is made pursuant to the advice. One who is close to the place may join immediately. On the other hand, one may require a few days to travel to join the post, depending on the distance. One may join even a few days after the date of advice. There may also be situations of delay on the part of the appointing authority in issuing orders of appointment. It is in that context that the Rule specifically provides that the seniority will depend on the date of advice and not on the date of appointment or date of joining.4. T Raju (Respondent No. 6 in C.A. No. 7849/2009 and Respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 7913/2009) approached the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 18040/1996 with a grievance that he was entitled to be advised from the rank list published on 12/06/1992, on his position at No. 86 under the reserved quota for Ezhava. His contention was upheld by the High Court by judgment dated 17/01/2001. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:In the circumstances, I am of the view that the proper order to be passed is to direct the 2nd Respondent to revise the advise list including Mohanan. holder of Rank No. 7, in the merit quota and to advise the Petitioner including him in the appropriate Ezhava turn against the next advisable vacancy for the post of Excise Inspector. I direct accordingly. The seniority and service conditions of the 83 candidates already advised and appointed shall not, however, be disturbed. As and when advice is received, the 1st Respondent shall provide appointment to the Petitioner in the next available vacancy.(Emphasis supplied)5. The Kerala Public Service Commission filed Writ Appeal No. 2110 of 2001, which was decided by judgment dated 13/11/2002. The appeal was dismissed holding that learned Single Judge was very careful to see that seniority is not affected as it was directed that the Petitioner shall be accommodated without affecting the seniority of persons already advised and without disturbing the appointments already made. In the above circumstances, no interference is required.

Reasoning:
8. We are afraid, the contentions raised by the Respondents cannot be appreciated. There is a lot of difference, as we have already referred to above, between advice and appointment and also there is a lot of difference between the effective date of advice and actual date of appointment. In the case of T. Raju, the judgment dated 17/01/2001, as confirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 13/11/2002 has become final. The High Court was very clear in its mind that T. Raju should have been advised at least after the last advice as on the date of the judgment and that is why the Court very guardedly used the expression advisable vacancy. The Division Bench has rightly observed, that the Single Judge did not want to disturb the seniority of all those candidates advised and appointed by the date of judgment dated 17/01/2001. The time granted by the Division Bench of the High Court is for the implementation of the judgment dated 13/11/2002. It has to be seen that the writ appeal was actually dismissed, meaning thereby that the benefit granted to T. Raju to have his appointment based on the next advisable vacancy after the judgment was not disturbed. More importantly, it has to be seen that the non-disturbance to seniority on account of appointment of T. Raju was only to those 83 candidates appointed prior to 17/01/2001 and not to others. In other words, T. Raju was entitled to take a position below the 83rd candidate for the purposes of seniority, of course, having regard to the next advisable vacancy, which is the effective advice.9. In the affidavit dated 11/09/2017 filed before this Court, it is very clearly stated that Shri. G. Madhu, immediate senior to the Petitioner who was advised on 05/01/1998 got appointment in the cadre of Excise Inspector only on 01/03/1999. It is further stated in the affidavit that when the direct recruit vacancy arose in the Cadre after 07/11/1996 (i.e. last advise from 1992 Select List), the first vacancy for the direct recruits arose on 01/04/1999....10. That being the factual position, on implementation of the judgment dated 17/01/2001, T. Raju is entitled to get the advice after the last advice from the 1992 list i.e. 05/01/1998. That is the effectively advisable vacancy as far as T. Raju is concerned in terms of the judgment, as confirmed by the Division Bench as well by judgment dated 13/11/2002.