K. Lakshmi v. State of Kerala & Others (WA No. 1856 of 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 **WA.No. 1856 of 2010** **---------------------** AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20683/2009 Dated 12/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ K.LAKSHMI, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.S.KRISHNA IYER, RESIDING AT SATYA GRIHA, BHAJANA KOVIL ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673 002. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.B.G.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR(GENERAL) HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031. 3. THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031. 4. KERALA JUDICIAL OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION, OLD HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. BABU.K, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVANNOOR PO,691 533,AYUR, KOLLAM. - 6. KRISHNAKUMAR.P,PUTHEN VEEDU, - VANDANAM PO, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. ## **WA.No. 1856 of 2010** - *7. SMITHA M, UPAHAR, UDAYA NAGAR, NEAR KARTHYANI TEMPLE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. - *8. MUHAMMED RAEES.M. ROBY NIVAS, - MUDAPURAM PO, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001. ## **9. _**KAUSAR EDAPPAGATH, ZAHIRA, PO, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-02.**_ 10. JAYACHANDRAN.C.LAKSHMINIVAS, EAST KADUNGALLUR U.C.COLLEGE PO, ALUVA-683 102. 11. MINU MATHEWS, THAZCHAYIL KALLOOR, KAVUMBHAGOTH, THIRUVALLA - 689 102. 12. BADHARUDDEN A, PANAYIL VEEDU, MYLAKKADU PO, 691 571, KOLLAM. - *13. GIRIJA P.G, KAZHANIPARAMBIL, PARAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 032. - 14. SHAJITH T., UDAYAM, I.M.A, HALL ROAD, O.O.NADAKKAVU, CALICUT-11. - *15. BEVEENA NATH K.S,TAJ,PRAYIKARA, ALAPPUZH A-690 101. 16. MANILAL C,S,CHENNATTU HOUSE, VELLAVOOR PO, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686 541. - 17. SHEEBA THOMAS, W/O.SUBAL PAUL, MOONJAPPILLY HOUSE, PROVIDENCE ROAD,KOCHI-18. - *18. JAYAKUMAR K.V, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, - PO.KANUMANAGALAM, PERUMPILLY LANE, THRISSUR680001. - 19. NAZEERA.S,8/61,NELSA,VIDYA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 001. - *20. BALAMURALEEDHARAN.G,"SMRUTHI",STADIUM ROAD, N.PARAVUR PO,ERNAKULAM-682 011. - *21. SHEREEF K.P.,KADAMBIL, POOZHITHARAMMAL, TRIPRANGODU, TIRUR-8. - *22. NAVIN M, EASOW, NIRAYANNOOR HOUSE, - KUMPLAMPOIKA PO,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 661. ## **WA.No. 1856 of 2010** - *23. BALAKRISHNAN K.K, ADVOCATE, KARIYANGATTE HOUSE, PARAPPUPARA, KODIYURA PO, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 515. *24. SULEKHA.M, PANAMVILAKAM VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR PO, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 126. - *25. AJITH THANKAYYA, PADAMALAYAM, KANJIRAMKULAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 524. - 26. ASHA B, MATHEWS,PALLATHU HOUSE, PALATHINKAL LANE, N.F.GATE, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301. - *27. JAYARAJ.M,.JAYAVITAS, ELAPPULLY PO, PALAKKAD-678 622. - *28. SHERLY..S.A,W/O.P.J.JOSE, - PUNNAKKATTUSSERY, V.B.GARDEN, B1,F3, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD WEST PO,PIN-682 030. - *29. MOHANAN VALIYAPURAYIL,VALIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PAZHASSI, PAVANNOOR MOTTA PO, KANNUR670001. - *30. ANITA P.S, ADOVATE, KALEEKAL HOUSE, KAVANAD, KOLLAM-691 003. - *31. ANIL RAJ.K.K.KAYAKANDIYIL HOUSE, PUDUPPANAM PO, VATAKARA,KOZHIKODE-673 105. - *32. LATHA JAYARAJ, ADV.LATHA REMAM, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001. - *33. ANIL C.D., ASHA BHAVAN, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM PO,ALLEPPY-688001. - *34. SUNIL KUMAR.K,CHEMBAKA,NANMINDE, KOZHIKODE-673 613. - *35. NAVAS C.A.CHIRACKAKUDY HOUSE, ALLPARA PO,KUTTIPPADAM ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683542. - *36. CLEMENCE ANTO GRACE THOTTAPILLY, ADVOCATE, TRAMWAY LANE, CHALAKUDY PO, THRISSUR-680 307. ## **WA.No. 1856 of 2010** - *37. FATHIMA BEEVI M.M.SANDRAM, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. - *38. CHITRA LEKHA V.K, RAMAVILAS, PAPPANAMCODE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 018. *39. BABU SANKAR.K.AKSHAYA, VKNRA-153, THIRUMULLAVARAM,KOLLAM-691 012. *40. HARI KRISHNAN.T, SADHUPURAM, MUYLAPRA PO,689 671. - *41. SUNIL KUMAR V.S,ADVOCATE ROOM.NO.5, GOVARDHAN TOWER, ATHANI LANE,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695001. - *42. PRASAD C,SOUPARNIKA, NEAR COURT COMPLEX, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673592. *43. ALPHONSA JOHN, ADVOCATE,KATTINGAL, ALOOR, THRISSUR-680 683. *44. ALIYAR M.M.,M.M.HOUSE, MOOZHICHAL ROAD, MARKET PO,MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. *45. SIVANANDAN C.T.,CHEEKILOTTU THAZHATH HOUSE, PO.MAKKADA,KAKKAD-673 617. *46. SANITHA M.C.,23/2334,KANDASSAMPARAMBIL, PALLURUTHY, COCHI-6, *47. BEENA K.C,KOMATHARA HOUSE, (CHAKKUMCHATH),UDAYAMPEROOR PO,NADAKKAVU, ERNAKULAM-682 307. *48. ASHA P, "GOPIKA",T.C.27/770,RRA F-143, RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYYUR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-697 035. _(_ _***** RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8, 13 TO 15, AND 17 TO 48 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AND THE REMAINING PARTIES ARE RENUMBERED AS 1 TO 10 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.11.2O1O IN I.A.NO. 876 of 2010)_ _(_ _****** AFTER DELETION OF RESPONDENTS FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2010 IN I.A.876 OF 2010, R6 IS_ _**KAUSAR EDAPPAGATH** . AS PER THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2011 IN I.A. 65 OF 2011, R6 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AND T HE RESPONDENTS ARE RE-NUMBERED AS 1 TO 9.)_ ## _**WA.No. 1856 of 2010**_ R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BENNY GERVASIS R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ABD BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R5 AND R12 BY SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE R11 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE FOR R11 R17 BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .............................................................................. ## **W.A.No. 1856 OF 2010** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 8[th] March, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **J. Chelameswar, CJ.** The Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment in W.P. (C) No.20683 of 2009, by the unsuccessful petitioner. ## 2. The prayers in the writ petition is as follows: _i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of District Judges ear marked for open competition candidates from the Bar._ _ii) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”_ ## 3. The various grounds on which the writ petition is filed are as follows: _“A. It is submitted that the petitioner is included in the ranked list with rank No.4 for the post of District Judges from open competition based on her merit and ability. Hence she got an enforceable right for being appointed to the post of_ **W.A.No. 1856 OF 2010** **2** _District Judge in accordance with law and denial of the same to the petitioner is violate of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India._ _B. It is submitted that there is no specific prescription either in the notification or in the rules regarding the validity period of the ranked list and that there was no condition attached to the notification that only notified vacancies will be filled_ _up from the present list. Assuming but not admitting that there is such a stipulation the above conditions in the notification has lost its relevance or it is unenforceable in view of the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 1867/2006. It is submitted that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all authorities and persons and it has got a force of law, which is the constitutional mandate. C. It is submitted that the ranked list for the post of District Judges is one prepared after elaborate process of selection and it is one to be honoured to fill up the existing vacancies. It is submitted that in terms of the rules as well when a ratio is prescribed for the post that should be strictly adhered to. It is submitted that it is not the case of anybody that the vacancies of District Judges are kept unfilled. Any discriminatory treatment with regard to the selection to the post of District Judges_ **3** ## **W.A.No. 1856 OF 2010** _by direct recruitment by ignoring the ratio prescribed is highly unjust, illegal and unreasonable._ _D. It is submitted that the right to get public employment in accordance with law is a constitutionally guaranteed right and such a right can be taken away only in accordance with law. It is submitted that the action of the respondent always demands fairness and reasonableness and they are duty bound to fill up the post of District Judges from the list prepared for the direct recruitees taking into account the cadre strength._ _E. It is submitted that the right of a person to get appointment is an accrued right and since the petitioner is a candidate included in the ranked list with Rank No.4 she got a right and has a right to get it enforced by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India._ _F. It is submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have notified the vacancies based on the principle laid down therein that when vacancies are notifying apart from the existing vacancy at least 10% of anticipated vacancy should also be taken into account. In that event the respondents ought to have notified at least 8 vacancies rather than_ **4** ## **W.A.No. 1856 OF 2010** _limiting the same to 6. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter is not seen considered by the respondent while notifying the post._ _G. It is submitted that the action of notifying 6 vacancies is against the statutory provisions and the decision taken to report only 6 vacancies cannot stand in the test of law in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Malik Manzoor Sultan's case. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not applying the ratio then existed is highly unjust and illegal._ _For these and other grounds that may be urgent at the time of hearing it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the entire records and further be pleased to ”_ 4. The selection which is sought to be attacked by way of Writ Petition in question in the instant appeal, is with regard to the selection process to fill up 6 posts of District Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, governed by the provisions of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules,1961, initiated by Notification dated 16.04.2007. Thereafter much water passed under the bridge. The said selection process was the **5** ## **W.A.No. 1856 OF 2010** subject matter of repeated rounds of litigations before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court. The entire history of the litigation is detailed in the judgment reported in **2010 (4) KHC** **1** ( _**Jayachandran C. vs. High Court of Kerala**_ ). Pursuant to the said judgment, the selection process was finalised and the successful candidates were appointed. 5. The instant writ petition is dismissed by the judgment under appeal holding that in view of the judgment referred to above, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant writ petition. Hence the appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the entire selection process is vitiated, firstly for the reason that the selection should be based only on merit without applying any rules of reservation and secondly, the number of posts to which the appointments had to be made by Direct Selection was atleast 18 and cannot be limited to '6' as was done by the above mentioned notification 7. We must make it clear that these submissions are not based on any of the pleadings in the writ petition. (We have **6** ## **W.A.No. 1856 OF 2010** already extracted the grounds in the earlier part of this judgment). Secondly, assuming for the sake of argument that such a challenge is to be entertained, it is to be noted that the writ petition, from which the instant appeal arises was filed in the year 2009, i.e, after a lapse of two years from the date of the notification. The above mentioned grounds were available to the appellant from the day on which the notification was issued. In any view of the matter, in our opinion, the Writ Petition does not deserve any consideration. The learned Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not see any ground to take a different view on the merits of the case. The writ appeal is dismissed. **J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.** **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** lk