the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.15913 of 2024. Appellant
were the petitioners in the W.P.(C). The 3rd and 4th respondents
were the 1st and 3rd respondents in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the 1 st and 2nd respondents who
Corporation Ltd. through the appellant Public Service
Commission. They had filed the W.P.(C) seeking the following
"1. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd
respondent Kerala Public Service Commission to
release the advice against 6 vacancies reported as
per Exts.P3, P5, P6 and P8 ;
2025:KER:75555
2. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st
respondent to issue order of appointment in
consequence of advise issued by the 2nd
respondent ;
3. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st
respondent to report all vacancies in the Corporation
to the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service
Commission ;
4. Such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deem fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the W.P.(C) and
directed the KPSC to forward advice in respect of the two vacancies
of Junior Manager (Accounts) which the Kerala State Civil Supplies
Corporation had reported with direction to give appointment from the
ranked list dated 01.03.2024 within a period of two weeks from the
date of judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the KPSC has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the
appellant and Smt.K.Vinaya for respondents 1 and 2. Sri.Santhosh
Peter, Advocate, appears for R3 and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose,
Government Pleader, appears for the 4th respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
2025:KER:75555
erroneous, faulty and unsustainable. The principal contention put
forth by the appellant is that the learned Single Judge had failed to
appreciate that there had been a substantial change in the
qualification notified and the qualification which was amended in
terms of the amendment to the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted
that the qualification notified was :
i) B.A./B.Sc/B.Com or any other equivalent three-year
degree from a recognised University.
ii) Pass in the intermediate examination of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India.
However, the amended qualification was different from the above,
and the same were as follows :
1) Graduation in any discipline
2) Pass in intermediate examination of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants/Accountants from a UGC
recognised University/National Institutes established
by the Central Government or an institution established
by the Government of Kerala.
It is contended that since the amendment, as noted above, was
substantial in nature, the learned Single Judge ought not have
interfered and allowed the W.P.(C). It is trite that once the Rule
has been amended, the KPSC is bound to abide by the amended
2025:KER:75555
Rules. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and
others v. Raj Kumar and others1 , to buttress the contention that
once the Rules have been amended, the KPSC is bound to abide by
the same. Thus, when statutory Rules are made, no person could
be appointed to the post if he does not possess the prescribed
qualification. Amendment to the qualification takes away the right of
the candidates to be selected in accordance with the old Rules. It is
now trite and settled that when Rules are amended, the vacancy
can be filled only as per the amended Rules and not otherwise.
There is no Rule of universal application that vacancies must be
necessarily filled based on the norms which existed on the date
when they arose. The amendment to the Rules had been made
considering the nature of the work and the felt necessity of
amending the Rules. These aspects were not properly appreciated
by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that in a
recruitment process, there is no right to be appointed, but only the
right to be considered. The conditions of public service are ones
that are open to being varied by the appointing authority, and such
1. (2023) 3 SCC 773]
2025:KER:75555
variations cannot be found fault with or challenged, since they are
done by a competent authority to meet the felt necessities of the
times. The finding of the learned Single Judge that vacancies are to
be filled up even after the amendment to the Special Rules as per
the old Rules specified in the notification is unsustainable in the light
of a dictum as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A
candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing
Rules, ie., the Rules that are in force on the date of appointment. It
is thus submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
unsustainable and fit to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
and 2nd respondents vehemently objected to the contentions put
forth by the appellant and defended the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. It is submitted that the KPSC amended the Rules on
11.02.2021, whereas the KPSC notification was on 30.04.2021. It
follows that ideally, the KPSC notification must have been as per the
new Rules and not as per the old Rules. However, due to an
oversight on the part of the KPSC, the notification was made based
on the old Rules. The said lapse on the part of the KPSC had led to
the overlooking of the new Rules. Placing reliance on Note (i) to
2025:KER:75555
Ext.P1, which states that candidates will be advised against the
vacancy shown therein and for all vacancies reported during the
period of the currency of the ranked list, it is contended that the 1 st
and 2nd respondents are entitled to the post as per the notification.
There has been no mistake on the part of the 1 st and 2nd
respondents and the violation/mistake, if any, was on the part of the
appellant KPSC. To buttress the contentions put forth, reliance is
placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Y.V.Rangaiah v. J.Sreenivasa Rao2 .
7. We have heard both sides and have considered the
contentions put forth. We note that the Honourable Supreme Court
has in Raj Kumar (supra) held that the statement in Y.V.Rangaiah
(supra) that "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended
Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended
Rules" does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing
services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the
Constitution. After a detailed survey of the cases that have
distinguished in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra), the Honourable Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar (supra) has pithily summed up the conclusions
2. [(1983) 3 SCC 284]
2025:KER:75555
derived as follows:
"1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies
must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which
existed on the date when they arose. Rangaiah's case must
be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.
2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has
a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules,
which implies the rules in force. As on the date consideration
takes place, the right to be considered for promotion occurs
on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.
3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy
decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the
amendment of the rules. The employees do not acquire any
vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance
with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by
the Government. There is no obligation for the Government
to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of
restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of
the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of
the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be
justified on the touchstone of Article 14.
4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely
because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the
appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately."
"82.5 When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to
consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to
the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the
cases."
It is in the backdrop of the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the averments in the case at hand have to be
examined.
8. Admittedly, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation
Common Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, were formulated by
consolidating the existing rules and orders of the Corporation, and
2025:KER:75555
the same now uniformly govern the service conditions of all its
employees. Pursuant to the G.O.(P) No.3/2021/F & CSD dated
11.02.2021, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Manager
(Accounts) had been amended, and the prescribed qualifications too
stand amended thereby. Subsequently, on 03.01.2022, two fresh
vacancies for the said post had been reported, i.e., the reporting of
the said vacancies occurred after the amendment to the
Recruitment Rules and it pertained to vacancies that arose following
the introduction of the Rules of 2021. It is also undisputed that the
method of appointment and requisite qualifications are governed by
2021 Rules, under which the qualifications prescribed in the Special
Rules for the post stand amended. The practical impact of the law
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra)
discussed above, is that once the qualifications have been revised,
vacancies arising after the date of such amendment cannot be filled
from the previously published ranked list. Instead, those vacancies
must be filled pursuant to a fresh notification and a selection
process conducted in accordance with the amended Special Rules.
9. We find merit in the submission put forth by the KPSC that
since the qualification has been amended, the vacancies which
2025:KER:75555
arose after the date of amendment could not be filled from the
ranked list published on 01.03.2024 and such vacancies could only
be filled by a fresh notification and through a selection process
conducted in accordance with the amended Special Rules. In light
of the said unequivocal legal position, buttressed by the dictum in
Raj Kumar (supra), the reliance placed by the respondents on the
earlier dictum in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) is unsustainable. It follows
that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment that the subsequent qualification will not modify
the qualification prescribed in the notification dated 30.04.2021 is
not sustainable. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is
accordingly set aside.
The Writ Appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
