Inclusion in a rank list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment against abolished posts.

The appellants were candidates included in a Rank List (Ext.P2) for the post of Office Attendants (OA) in the High Court of Kerala, following a 2019 notification

Although 24 vacancies were initially notified, the High Court filled significantly more (advising 388 persons from the Main List) during the list's currency

Before the list expired on 16.06.2024, the High Court abolished 34 OA posts in exchange for other necessary posts via a Government Order (Ext.P7)

Simultaneously, the High Court issued a new notification (Ext.P6) on 30.05.2024 for anticipated vacancies arising after the expiry of the current list

The appellants challenged the abolition of the 34 posts, alleging it was illegal and intended to deny them appointment

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, leading to this appeal

1. Whether candidates included in a Rank List possess an indefeasible right to be appointed to abolished or future vacancies

2. Whether the abolition of 34 posts by the High Court was capricious, mala fide, or a breach of constitutional trust

3. Whether the notification of 34 anticipated vacancies (Ext.P6) while the current Rank List was still in force violated the rights of the empaneled candidates

settled principle that inclusion in a Rank List does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. Sheejamol M.C. and Others [2020 (5) KHC 555 (FB)], which establishes that the State is not bound to fill all notified vacancies unless the decision not to do so is arbitrary or mala fide

administrative autonomy of the High Court in policy decisions regarding post abolition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Court reasoned that the High Court’s decision to abolish 34 OA posts was a policy matter aimed at restructuring staff requirements, agreed upon by the Government via Ext.P7

The appellants failed to prove any mala fides or specific intent to prejudice them; thus, the court found no grounds for judicial interference

Regarding the new notification (Ext.P6), the Court clarified that although it coincided with the expiry of the old list, it explicitly targeted "anticipated vacancies" arising after 16.06.2024

Evidence showed the first vacancy under the new notification would only arise on 31.08.2024, confirming there were no active vacancies to accommodate the appellants at the time the old list expired

The "coincidence" in the number of vacancies (34) did not equate to the abolished posts being surreptitiously reopened

Finding no error in the Single Judge's judgment or any violation of Article 14, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals

The court affirmed that administrative decisions regarding the abolition of posts are valid if made for bona fide reasons of staff management