Kerala High Court
Jibin Sebastian vs High Court Of Kerala,Represented By The ... on 17 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21090 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 VISHNUDEV K
AGED 29 YEARS
KOTTIYATTIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA P.O., ALUMKOOTTAM,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 679340
2 VAISAKH T.T
AGED 28 YEARS
AAVANI, CHENGAL KOVVAPURAM, PAYANGADI P.O., KANNUR, PIN
- 670303
3 PREEJA N
AGED 42 YEARS
MAKKAT MEATHAL, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, PANTHEERENKAVU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
4 DIVYA P.B
AGED 42 YEARS
PARAKKATTIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
5 SUBHASH R
AGED 35 YEARS
433 VADAKKEKALAM, VALIYATTUKUNNU, TENKURISSI-1,
VILAYANNUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678671
6 SAJEESH G
AGED 39 YEARS
VEMBRANKODE HOUSE, KOOTTALA P.O., KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678681
7 SREEJITH P.S
AGED 44 YEARS
PADANNATHARA HOUSE, PANANBUKAD, VALLARPADAM P.O.,
KOCHI, PIN - 682504
BY ADV SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE REGISTRAR, (RECRUITMENT & COMPUTERISATION)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
FOR R1 AND R2 BY SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC
FOR R3 AND R4 BY SRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.21070/2024, 23548/2024, THE COURT
ON 17.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21070 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 JIBIN SEBASTIAN
AGED 28 YEARS
KARAKKATTU HOUSE, AMBOORI, AMBOORI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
2 ABHIDEV S
AGED 28 YEARS
,PUTHEN KALIYIL VEEDU, ARASHUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGADU
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
3 SREEKALA KUMARI P
AGED 41 YEARS
GOKULAM, CHAMAVILA, DALUMMUKHAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695125
4 SUKANYA B
AGED 38 YEARS
KALLUVILAKIZHAKKATHIL MEKKON, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM,,
PIN - 691014
5 HAREESH H.G
AGED 28 YEARS
KAVANATTUKONAM, PARAYIL VILAKOMVEEDU, KOLLODU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571
BY ADV SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 4
2 THE REGISTRAR,(RECRUITMENT & COMPUTERISATION)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
FOR R1 AND R2 BY SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC
FOR R3 AND R4 BY SRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.21090/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 17.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23548 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 SREEPARVATHY R.S
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O C RENULAL RESIDING AT SREELAND, VANCHIYOOR PO,
ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695102
2 HAMI DINESAN
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O DINESAN TB THANNIKKAL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU P.O.
PARAKKADAVU. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683579
3 NISHA . A.
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O SUGUNAN, PUTHUPARAMBU VELI MARARIKULAM NORTH.P.O
CHERTHALA.ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688523
4 SANDHYA KRISHNAN
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. GOPALA KRISHNAN, SOUMYA BHAVANAM, PUTHENCHANTHA.
P. O, VALLIKUNNAM, PIN - 690501
5 MANAS T. M
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O MURALEEDHARAN T. T, THEKKEPARAMBIL (H)
KULAYETTIKARA P. O, ARAYANKAVU ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682317
6 RESHMA SOMAN
AGED 28 YEARS
W/O HARIKRISHNAN T.P THEKKEPURACKAL (H),
KULAYATTIKKARA P.O, MAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315
7 NASEER K.P
AGED 44 YEARS
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 6
S/O ABDULLAH K P KOOTTAPPULAVIL HOUSE VALAPURAM POST
PULAMANTHOLE VIA (MALAPPURAM), PIN - 679323
8 KIRAN PREM KUMAR
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O PREM KUMAR S CHEKKUMMOODU BUNGLOW, TANGASSERI
KOLLAM, PIN - 691007
9 DEVIKA G.S
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O SUDHARSHAN NAIR, KALIVEEDU, AKKARATHUMVILA
KUTTICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695574
0 HARIS N
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER U. SHARFI HOUSE, KUNNOTH, NETTOOR
THALASSERY, PIN - 670105
11 SWATHY P.S
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O SURESH P.V. PADINJARATH HOUSE, P.O. AYYANTHOLE
TRISSUR, PIN - 680003
12 VAISAKH T.T
AGED 28 YEARS
AAVANI, CHENGAL KOVVAPURAM, PAYANGADI P.O., KANNUR,
PIN - 670303
13 PREEJA N
AGED 42 YEARS
MAKKAT MEATHAL, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, PANTHEERENKAVU
P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
14 DIVYA P.B
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O P.K. BALAKRISHNAN PARAKKATTIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU
P.O., KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682311
15 SAJEESH G
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN VEMBRANKODE HOUSE, KOOTTALA P.O.,
KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678681
16 JIBIN SEBASTIAN
AGED 28 YEARS
KARAKKATTU HOUSE, AMBOORI, AMBOORI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 7
17 ABHIDEV S
AGED 28 YEARS
PUTHEN KALIYIL VEEDU, ARASHUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGADU
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695541
18 SREEKALA KUMARI P
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, GOKULAM, CHAMAVILA, DALUMMUKHAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695125
19 SUKANYA B
AGED 38 YEARS
KALLUVILAKIZHAKKATHIL MEKKON, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691014
0 HAREESH H.G
AGED 28 YEARS
KAVANATTUKONAM, PARAYIL VILAKOMVEEDU, KOLLODU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571
BY ADV SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE REGISTRAR, (RECRUITMENT & COMPUTERISATION)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
BY ADVS.
FOR R1 AND R2 BY SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC
FOR R3 AND R4 BY SRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, GOVT.PLEADER
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 8
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.06.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.21090/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 17.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68903
WP(C)No.23548/2024 and Con.Cases 9
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.21090/2024, 21070/2024,
23548/2024]
All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners,
being aggrieved by the denial of appointments to them, by the 1 st
respondent as Office Attendants, despite the fact that, they were included
in the ranked list published in this regard. It is also their grievance that,
without giving them appointment, now a fresh selection process is
notified for the said post. (WP(C)No. 23548/2024 is treated as the leading
case and the Exhibits and the parties will be hereinafter referred to in this
judgment as per the description and sequence thereof in the said writ
petition)
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as
follows:
The 2nd respondent published Ext.P1 notification dated
19.12.2019, inviting applications to the post of Office Attendant in the
High Court of Kerala. The vacancies notified in Ext.P1 were 24 in
numbers, but it was also mentioned therein that, the vacancies that may
2025:KER:68903
arise during the period of validity of the ranked list shall also be filled up
from the list. It was also provided that, the said ranked list shall remain in
force for a minimum period of one year from the date on which it was
brought into force and shall continue to remain in force until the
publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of two years, whichever is
earlier.
3. The petitioners have submitted applications in response to
Ext.P1 and participated in the selection process. Thereafter, Ext.P2 ranked
list was published by the 2 nd respondent, wherein, all the petitioners were
included. During the validity of Ext.P2 ranked list, the 2 nd respondent
issued appointment orders on 11.8.2022, 18.10.2022, 3.1.2023, 21.2.2023,
5.4.2023, 29.5.2023, 3.8.2023, 5.1.2024, 27.2.2024, 20.4.2024, 24.5.2024
and 15.6.2024 by appointing 332 candidates from Ext.P2 rank list. The
total sanctioned post were 345 in the cadre. During the subsistence of the
Ext.P2 ranked list, 34 vacancies of Office Attendants which had arisen
between 4.3.2023 and 4.1.2024, were not filled up. It is averred that, on
seeking information from respondents 1 and 2, it was conveyed that, 34
posts of O.As. as referred to above were proposed to be abolished as per
the decision taken by the 1st respondent and a further decision was taken
2025:KER:68903
to create 18 new posts in various other categories in the High Court
establishment. The said proposal was submitted before the Government
and the approval of the Government was awaiting. The said posts were
not filled up by the 1 st and 2nd respondents. Subsequently, as per Ext.P7
Government Order dated 21.6.2024,the proposal made by the 1 st
respondent was accepted by the Government, thereby, 34 posts of O.As.,
were abolished and instead, 18 new posts, including that of additional
Protocol Officer, Section Officer/Court Officer, Personal Assistant Grade-
II, Confidential Assistant Grade-II and Cook, were created. In the
meantime, the Ext.P2 ranked list expired on 16.6.2024. Even before the
expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list, the 2 nd respondent issued a further
notification, which is produced as Ext.P6 dated 30.5.2024, inviting
applications to the posts of Office Attendant. In Ext.P6, it was sought to
fill up 34 numbers of anticipated vacancies. According to the petitioners,
the non filling up of 34 vacancies, which were in existence during the
subsistence of Ext.P2 ranked list and inviting application for filling up of
34 vacancies on the verge of expiry of the term of Ext.P2 ranked list, are
arbitrary and hence liable to be interfered with. The reliefs sought in
WP(C) No.23548/2024 are as follows:
2025:KER:68903
"i. call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 to P9
ii. And issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to quash Ext P7 to the extent of denial the appointment of 34
candidates from the Ext P2 rank list.
iii. And issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction to quash Ext P6 notification on the reason that it was
issued without bonafide.
iv. declare that all the existing vacancies of Office Attendants including
34 vacancies that are kept aside on account of proposal for abolishing
the same are entitled to be filled up from Exhibit-P2 ranked list.
v. Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 Order to the extent
of effecting appointment of 18 posts sanctioned by the Government by
abolishing the 34 vacancies from the Ext. P2 rank list and also stay all
further proceedings pursuant Ext. P6 notification.
vi. Direct the respondents to fill up all the existing and arising
vacancies of Office Attendants in the High Court of Kerala from Ext.
P2 rank list by extending the validity of the same from 16.06.2024 to
16.12.2024 or any other period as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble
Court which is fit and proper to the redressal of the grievance of the
petitioners.
vii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to effect appointment of 34
posts of Office Attendants from Exhibit-P2 ranked list.
viii. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition
(Civil)."
In the other writ petitions also, similar reliefs are sought.
4. The 1st and 2nd respondents have filed counter affidavits
in all the writ petitions, controverting the averments contained in the writ
petitions and also opposing the reliefs sought. It is averred in the counter
affidavit that, apart from 24 vacancies notified as per Ext.P1 notification,
appointments were made against 105 more vacancies arose in the post.
Apart from the above, appointments were also made against the vacancies
that arose after the issuance of notification and upto the date of coming
2025:KER:68903
into the force of rank list ie., during the period from 19.12.2019 to
17.6.2022. Accordingly, so far, 332 candidates were given appointments
from Ext.P2 ranked list. The details of the various categories under
which the candidates were appointed, were also furnished. With regard to
the decision not to fill up 34 posts, the explanation offered by the 1 st and
2nd respondents is that, consequent to various reasons such as, the
implementation of Information and Communication Technology
initiatives in the High Court, the decision taken to revamp the protocol
wing of the High Court and also the decision taken to have a full fledged
Guest House for the High Court having facilities at par with the other
High Court Guest House, it was found necessary to create some new
posts. However, due to the acute financial crisis, the Government turned
down the request of the 1 st respondent to create additional posts. It was
also noticed that, on account of the implementation of the Information
and Communication Technology Project in the High Court, there arose a
redundancy in respect of few posts including Office Attendants.
5. In such circumstances, the Administrative Committee of the 1 st
respondent, in its meetings held on 10.10.2023 and 27.10.2023 has taken
a decision to convert 34 posts of Office Attendants to create additional
2025:KER:68903
posts in some other categories. Accordingly, a proposal was submitted
before the Government for abolishing 34 posts of O.As., and to create 18
new posts in various categories.
6. The Government considered the said proposal and accorded
sanction for the same, as per Ext.P7. With regard to the Ext.P6
notification, it is the specific case of the respondents 1 and 2 that, 34
vacancies referred to therein, are the vacancies that are expected to arise
during the period from 17.6.2024 to 16.6.2026 and the same has nothing
to do with the 34 vacancies that were kept unfilled in the light of the
proposal which was pending before the Government. In the counter
affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 also denied the right of the petitioners
to claim appointments as O.As., merely because of their inclusion in the
Ext.P2 ranked list. It was further contended that, all the decisions were
taken as part of implementation of a policy which cannot be questioned
by the petitioners.
7. I have heard Sri. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and
Sri. Arun Ajay Sankar, the learned Government Pleader for the
2025:KER:68903
respondents 3 and 4.
8. From the pleadings and contentions raised from both sides, it is
discernible that the dispute in these cases pertains to the non filling up of
34 posts of O.As, despite the fact that, those posts were lying vacant
during the period when Ext.P2 ranked list was in force. According to the
petitioners, the 2nd respondent published Ext.P6 notification, just before
the date of expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list, inviting applications to 34 posts
of O.As., which is violating the right of the petitioners to get
appointments based on their inclusion in the list.
9. One of the main objections raised by the respondents 1 and 2 is
that, the petitioners do not have a vested right to seek appointment,
merely because of the reason that, they were included in the ranked list.
Several decisions were cited to substantiate the said contention. It is also
the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that, as far as the change in the staff
pattern is concerned, it is the prerogative of the 1 st respondent and a
decision on the same has to be taken by the said respondent, taking into
account, various factors relating to the administration of the institution.
Therefore, it is a policy decision taken by the competent authority and
hence no interference could be made at the instance of the petitioners,
2025:KER:68903
Thus, the mere fact that, the petitioners were included in the ranked list
would not make them competent to challenge such policy decisions taken
by the 1st and 2nd respondents, it was contended.
10. When examining the position of law with regard to the right of
the persons included in the ranked list to get appointment, it can be seen
that, it is clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and
Others v. Raj Kumar Sharma and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 330], Union
Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC 154], S.S.
Balu vs. State of Kerala [(2009) 2 SCC 479], that, mere inclusion in the
select list does not confer any right to be selected even if some of the
vacancies remained unfilled. In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India
[(1991) 3 SCC 47] , a Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme has
also held that:
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the
successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed
which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the
post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is
under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it
does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona
fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are
filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination
can be permitted."
2025:KER:68903
11. Moreover, in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan
High Court and Others [Civil Appeal No.2634/2013] [(2025) 2 SCC
1], the following observations were made:
"25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have
legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and
non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in
public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-
arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises
that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a
legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the notion that
public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to
honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an
expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or
established procedure. [Sivanandan C.T. case, (2024) 3 SCC 799,
para 18]
26. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede
or hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or
withdraw it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise the
full range of choices available within its executive power. The public
authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors,
concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy
decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona
fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation
provided such a decision is taken in the larger public interest. Thus,
public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation.
27. Courts have to determine whether the public interest is
compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of
the claimant. While performing a balancing exercise, courts have to
often grapple with the issues of burden and standard of proof
required to dislodge the claim of legitimate expectation. [Sivanandan
C.T. case, (2024) 3 SCC 799, para 37]"
12. In the said decision, after elaborately discussing various
decisions in this regard, it was clearly held in paragraph 42 that,
2025:KER:68903
placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right of appointment.
The State or its instrumentality, for bonafide reasons may choose not to
fill up the vacancies. However, it was further observed that, if vacancies
exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment
to a person within its zone of consideration in the select list.
13. A Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service
Commission and Another v. Sheejamol M.C. and Others [2020(5)
KHC 555(FB)], considered the said question in a case in which the
appointing authority, the District Co-operative Bank, had taken a decision
not to fill up the vacancies already notified and select list prepared, due
to the change in the staff pattern. After referring to various decisions
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it was held
that, an appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, take a
decision not to fill up existing vacancies and merely on account of the fact
that, there is a ranked list in force, this Court will not, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, compel the
appointing authority to fill up those vacancies. In the said decision, it was
also held that, there cannot be any direction to the authorities to advise
candidates from the ranked list which has expired. Further, it was also
2025:KER:68903
observed that, even though it was possible for this Court to issue
directions to the appointing authority to fill up the posts even after the
expiry of the ranked list, in cases where there were non compliance of the
interim directions issued by this Court to report the vacancies, during the
period when the ranked list was in force, it was clarified that, such
directions could be issued only in exceptional circumstances and in rarest
of situations where, this Court comes to the conclusion, on final
adjudication of the lis, that the appointing authority had purposefully and
with malafide intention, failed to comply with the directions issued by
this Court.
14. Moreover, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.
Rajendran and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [AIR 1982
SC 1107]. Avas Vikas Sansthan and another v. Avas Vikas Sansthan
Engineers Assn. and others [(2006) 4 SCC 132], State of Haryana
and Others v. Piara Singh and Others [(1992) 4 SCC 118], the
Government has every right to change the staff pattern in accordance with
the requirements.
15. In State of Haryana v. Navneet Verma [(2008) 2 SCC 65] ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised the authority of the
2025:KER:68903
Government in abolishing a post and the extent of judicial interference as
follows ;
"17. We summarise the power of the Government in abolishing a post
and role of the court for interference:
(a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the Government;
(b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon
the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity;
(c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and
every sovereign government has this power in the interest and necessity
of internal administration;
(d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the
Government in the interest of administration and general public;
(e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material
to decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post or
refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from mala fides, legal or
factual;
(f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in
the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted."
16. In State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar and another, [(1976) 2
SCC 844] the Hon'ble Supreme Court said: "Whether a post should be retained
or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. As long as such
decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by
the court. It is not open to the court to go behind the wisdom of the decision and
substitute its own opinion for that of the Government on the point as to whether a
post should or should not be abolished."
Thus in the light of the principles laid down above, nothing would
preclude the respondents from changing staff pattern and the same cannot
be interfered by this court, unless it is shown that the same is perverse.
2025:KER:68903
17. Thus, the principles discussed as above, have to be applied
in the facts and circumstances of this case and a decision has to be taken
based on the same. When doing such exercise, the important aspect to be
noticed is that, a justifiable reason is forthcoming from the part of the
respondents 1 and 2, for not filling up the 34 posts that were lying vacant
during the period Ext.P2 ranked list was in force. The reason offered is
that, as part of altering the staff pattern due to the developments on
account of implementation of Information Technology measures, certain
posts including 34 posts of O.As., became redundant. Moreover, at the
same time, a necessity arose to create some additional posts in various
other categories as well. In such circumstances a conscious decision was
taken by the 1st respondent, to abolish 34 posts of O.As., and to create 18
new posts in the other categories. It is also to be noted in this regard that,
before taking such a decision, an attempt was made to create additional
posts which was not approved by the Government due to acute financial
stringencies. This would amount to a justifiable ground for the respondent
No1 to take a decision to abolish 34 posts of O.As., and to create 18
additional posts. Since such change in the staff pattern is having financial
implication, the proposal in this regard was forwarded to the Government.
2025:KER:68903
As that proposal was pending consideration, it was decided not to fill up
those vacancies. Ext.P7 would indicate that, the proposal so made was
eventually accepted by the Government, even though the owner in this
regard was passed after the expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list.
18. Thus, from the above sequence of events, it is evident that, the
decision was taken by the respondent no.1 due to administrative
exigencies and no malafide intention or any arbitrariness could be
attributed in respect of the same. As observed above, it is a well settled
position that, mere inclusion of the petitioners in the ranked list will not
give the petitioners any indefeasible right to claim the appointment. In
case, the decision was taken by the appointing authority as a policy
decision, and there is no malafide intention therein, no interference under
Art. 226 of the Constitution of India could be made by this Court issuing
direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to fill up the said post.
19. Apart from the above, it is to be noted that, the actual vacancies
notified in Ext.P2 was 24 only, and it was also mentioned in the
notification that, all the vacancies that arise during the subsistence of the
ranked list will also be filled up from the list. Going by the details furnished
by the respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that, 332 appointments were already
2025:KER:68903
made from the Ext.P2 ranked list. This itself indicate the fairness in the
actions of the respondents 1 and 2, and it also shows that all possible
opportunities were extended to the persons included in the ranked list.
20. As far the issuance of Ext.P6 notification is concerned,
it is the specific case of the respondents 1 and 2 that, the vacancies
notified therein are expected to arise from 17.6.2024 to 16.6.2026. The
Ext.P2 ranked list expired on 16.6.2024. Therefore, the petitioners cannot
raise any claim in respect of the said posts. Even though, the petitioners
have raised a contention that, the 34 posts now notified as per Ext.P6, are
the posts that remained unfilled during the subsistence of Ext.P2 ranked
list, there are no materials to arrive at such a conclusion. Further, I also do
not find any reason to discard the explanation offered by the respondent
No. 1 in this regard
21. Yet another aspect to be noticed while considering the
relief sought by the petitioners is that, the ranked list is already expired on
16.6.2024 and there is nothing before this Court to show that, any other
vacancies than the 34 vacancies referred to above, arose during the
relevant period and remained unfilled. Even though the petitioners have
sought a direction to extent the period of the Ext.P2 ranked list, the same
2025:KER:68903
cannot be entertained, in view of the fact that, such period is fixed as per
Rule 7(2) of Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 and the said period is
specifically mentioned in Ext.P1 notification as well. Similarly, the relief
sought by the petitioner to appoint them against the 34 vacancies also
cannot be considered now, as the list is already expired. It is to be noted
that, in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheejamol's case (supra),
it is clearly observed that, no direction can be issued by this Court under
Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, to the appointing authority to give
appointments to the persons included in the ranked list, after the expiry of
such list.
In such circumstances, after considering all the relevant aspects,
I could not find any justifiable reasons, to grant the reliefs sought in these
writ petitions and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
2025:KER:68903
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21090/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC3-
95662/2019 DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. REC 3-
95662/2019 FOR THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT
IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA PREPARED AND
PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT
FROM 17.06.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
HCKL/3185/2022-A3 DATED 24.05.2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 514/2023 DATED
14.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO SMT. JIBI
JAYAPRAKASAN
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
15.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY SMT. JIBI
JAYAPRAKASAN
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC3-
1794/2024 DATED 30.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.06.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND, 3RD AND
4TH PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHER CANDIDATES
INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT-P2 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.131/2024/HOME
DATED 21.06.2024
2025:KER:68903
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21070/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC3-
95662/2019 DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. REC 3-
95662/2019 FOR THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT
IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA PREPARED AND
PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT
FROM 17.06.2022
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
HCKL/3185/2022-A3 DATED 24.05.2024
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 514/2023 DATED
14.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO SMT. JIBI
JAYAPRAKASAN
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
15.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY SMT. JIBI
JAYAPRAKASAN
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC3-
1794/2024 DATED 30.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.06.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD, 4TH AND
5TH PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHER CANDIDATES
INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT-P2 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.131/2024/HOME
DATED 21.06.2024
2025:KER:68903
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23548/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC3-
95662/2019 DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. REC 3-
95662/2019 FOR THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT
IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA PREPARED AND
PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT
FROM 17.06.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO
HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DELETE
THEIR NAME
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 514/2023 DATED
14.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO SMT. JIBI
JAYAPRAKASAN
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
15.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY SMT. JIBI
JAYAPRAKASAN, ONE THE RANK HOLDERS OF THE
EXT.P2 RANK LIST TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC3-
1794/2024 DATED 30.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.131/2024/DATED
21.06.2024
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.06.2024 SUBMITTED BY SUKANYA ON BEHALF
OF THE ALL PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE
(PAGES 1,2, 7,8, 9,10) KERALA HIGH COURT
SERVICE RULES 2007
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.06.2024
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 7-9-2024 TO THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE TRUE COPY OF THE
APPLICATION INVOKING THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER DATED
13-8-2024
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF VACANCY DETAILS OF RANK LIST
2025:KER:68903
VALIDITY FROM 17-6-2022 TO 16-6-2024
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF 16 CANDIDATES
EXHIBIT P14 DETAILS OF CANDIDATES AS PER ROTATION CHART
OF 89 VACANCIES.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE VACANCIES ADVISED FROM 3-
8-2023 TO 15-6-2024 INCLUDING THE ROTATION
CHART STARTS FROM 91 TO 124
