Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 3346 of 2019
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.8395 OF 2019 (Diary No.21878/2018)]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AKHILESH V. S. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 3347 of 2019
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8396 OF 2019 (Diary No.21883/2018)]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P. R. BEEDHAVA ROY AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 3348 of 2019
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8397 OF 2019 (Diary No.21886/2018)]
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Signature Not Verified
SUBHASH KIZHAKKE VEETIL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2019.04.01
16:56:04 IST
Reason:
1
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted. I.A. No.137467 of 2018, application for
impleadment, is allowed.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction to make
appointments against 97 vacancies on the post of Blacksmith
Grade II. The sanctioned cadre strength of the post was 800, of
which 395 vacancies were already filled by substantive
appointments. The appellant made a requisition for 405
vacancies to the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Commission’), which forwarded a
recommendation with regard to 351 vacancies initially, and later
for another six posts followed by twentythree more against non
joining vacancies. The facts, for the purpose of convenience,
shall be taken primarily from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
Diary No.21878 of 2018. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being
applicants, were empaneled at serial nos. 284 and 294
2
respectively in the rank list. Appointments were made till rank
No. 278 only. The rank list has expired on 21.10.2017. The
respondents did not allege discrimination or arbitrariness by
violation of the rank list in making appointments. The High
Court opined that the appellant was obliged to make
appointments against requisitioned vacancies including those
that may have arisen subsequently, but during the life of the
rank list.
4. The short question arising for consideration in these
appeals is whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus
to make appointments because vacancies may exist.
Additionally, whether mandamus can be issued to make
appointments from the panel on vacancies which may have
arisen subsequently due to superannuation etc. during the life of
the rank list. The question assumes significance in view of the
stand of the appellant that it did not wish to make any further
appointments due to a financial crunch and a skewed bus to
passenger ratio, and for which purpose it had also appointed a
committee to recommend remedial measures.
3
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and opine that
the order of the High Court is unsustainable. The cadre
strength has rightly been held not to be a relevant consideration.
The High Court has erred in issuance of mandamus to fill up a
total of 97 vacancies, including those arising subsequently but
during the life of the rank list. Vacancies which may have arisen
subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition
and necessarily had to be part of another selection process. The
law stands settled that mere existence of vacancies or
empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to
appointment. The employer also has the discretion not to fill up
all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and
germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness. The appellant
contends a financial crunch along with a skewed staff/bus ratio
which are definitely valid and genuine grounds for not making
further appointments. The court cannot substitute its views
over that of the appellant, much less issue a mandamus
imposing obligations on the appellant corporation which it is
unable to meet.
4
6. Suffice to observe from Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs. State of
, (2016) 6 SCC 532:
Punjab
“12. In Manoj Manu v. Union of India , (2013) 12 SCC
171, it was held that (para 10) merely because the
name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it
would not give the candidate an indefeasible right to
get an appointment as well. It is always open to the
Government not to fill up the vacancies, however such
decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Once the decision is found to be based on some valid
reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to
the Government to fill up the vacancies…”
7. Resultantly, we are unable to sustain the orders of the High
Court which are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.
…………...................J.
[Arun Mishra]
…………...................J.
[Navin Sinha]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 01, 2019.
5