High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-06-05Writ petitions allowed; respondents directed to...

Vineeth N.R. and 17 others v. Staff Selection Commission and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 9489 of 2013 (I)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2014-06-05
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed; directing respondents to consider the petitioners for the selection for the recruitment year 2011, based on merit and satisfying other conditions for selection, within two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; respondents directed to consider petitioners for recruitment year 2011 based on merit and other conditions, within two months from receipt of this judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vineeth N.R.
Renjith P.R.
Nishad P. Kolakkadan (H)
Ratheesh Rermal Rermal (House)
Rajilesh A.P. Alayull? Neelam Parambath House, Nidumpparamba P.O., Kozhikode District-673506
Abhinand K. Kammangat
Ajith T.K. Thekkekalathupoyil
Arunkumar A.M. Alakkattumeethal House
Nidheesh C.V. Pollamthadam House
Renjith M., Sreejith Bhavan, Valiyaparambu, Marayamuttom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695124
Kumar G. Lekshmi Bavanam, Arattupuzha (N) P.O., Thrikkunnappuzha (VIA)., Alappuzha-690515
Shameem S. Nediyakalayil Puthen Veedu, Kumannoor P.O., Konni-689691
Sajju V., Vadakara Thekathil, Puthukunam P.O., Karthikappally Alapppuza-690516
Ashish V. Pillai, Kattor Padinjattathil, Edakkad P.O., Edakkad Kollam-691552
Rafeeh H. Parayampotta House, Kundukad, KizhaKKenhery P.O., Palakkad District-678684
Sanjay R., Nambanthodi, Mudaliyar Street, Shoranur-679121
Lenin Rajendran E. Elattuvalappil House, Pallam Post, Pallikkal PIN-679532, Thrissur District
Jayakumar K.S. Kallupurackal House, Changankary, Edathua Alappuzha

Respondents

Staff Selection Commission represented by its Chairman, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Karnataka-Kerala Region, Bengaluru-560034
Director General Border Security Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Director General Central Reserve Police Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Director General Central Industrial Security Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Director General Sashastra Seema Bal, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Director General Assam Rifles, Laithumkharh Post, Shillon g Shillong Meghalaya-793011
Director General Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. N. Nagareesh
• Sri. Shaji Thomas
• Sri. Binu Paul
• Sri. T.V. Vinu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair, ASGI
• Sri. T. Sanjay, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge the non-appointment of candidates who had been included in the select list for Constable (General Duty) and Rifleman (General Duty) posts under the Staff Selection Commission, seeking relief to fill vacancies earmarked for Kerala for the year 2011. The petitioners, 24 in number, contended that 21 vacancies existed in 2011 and should have been filled from the year-2011 notification; they assert that appointing candidates via the 2012–13 recruitment would amount to bypassing the year-2011 process. In their counter, the respondents claimed that the petitioners had lower marks than the cut-off for Reserve List 2 and that the recruitment for 2011 could not be re-opened by reference to subsequent years. The court notes that the government had stated that vacancies were available for 2011 and would be considered for 2012-13; however, the court held that vacancies notified for a given year must be filled from those who applied in that year. Relying on Asha Kaul (1993) 2 SCC 573 and other decisions, the court observed that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment, but the government must act fairly and not nullify a properly conducted recruitment. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for recruitment year 2011 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, based on merit and subject to other conditions.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mere inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
Obligation of the Government to act fairly and not nullify a properly conducted recruitment; the Government cannot adopt a stand that defeats the exercise after requisitioning the SSC.
Vacancies for the notified year must be filled from the candidates who applied for that year.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that there were 21 vacancies in Kerala for the year 2011 that were notified and that candidates who applied in response to that notification are entitled to appointment; they assert that continuing with the recruitment for subsequent years (2012-13) to fill 2011 vacancies undermines the notified process and deprives qualified candidates of appointments. They emphasize that the selection process—notification, written test, interviews, and preparation of select lists—creates a binding obligation on the government to act fairly and fill the vacancies from the year for which the notification was issued. The petitioners rely on established jurisprudence that mere inclusion in a select list does not create indefeasible right to appointment, yet the process must be honored and vacancies must be filled in accordance with the notified year and merit.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioners were not included in the select list due to lower marks than the cut-off for Reserve List 2 and that vacancies should be addressed in line with the 2012-13 recruitment plan rather than retroactively applying the 2011 vacancies. They contend that filling 2011 vacancies from 2012-13 recruitment would compromise merit and procedural fairness, and that the government cannot be forced to appoint where the candidate’s marks are below the cutoff. They also maintain that mere inclusion in the select list does not guarantee an appointment, but the decision must be based on merit and the available vacancies; the 2011 vacancies were to be dealt with under the applicable policy and roaster constraints. The respondents rely on the established rules regarding recruitment and the legitimate exercise of discretion by the government.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others	(1993) 2 SCC 573	Positive	Cited to support the principle that mere inclusion in the select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment and that the government must act fairly after a requisition for a fixed number of candidates.
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha	—	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the surrounding legal framework on eligibility and appointment rights but not central to the judging of fairness in this case.
Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana	—	Mentioned Only	Cited to contextualize the entitlement versus equity principle in recruitment; not directly ruling the present issue.
State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty	—	Mentioned Only	Cited in the discussion of recruitment rights and fairness, not a controlling precedent in this decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Vineeth N.R. and 17 others v. Staff Selection Commission and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/15TH JYAISHTA, 1936** **WP(C).No. 9489 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** - **--------------------------** **1. VINEETH N.R., NADUVILEDATHU, PUTHENANGADY, THIRUNAKKARA P.O. KOTTAYAM-686001.** **2. RENJITH P.R. PAZHAYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA, EAST P.O. KANJIRAMATTOM, IDUKKI-685585.** **3. NISHAD P. KOLAKKADAN (H), PERAVOOR P.O., KUNITHALA.** **4. RATHEESH RERMAL RERMAL (HOUSE), KOLATHOOR, CHUZHALI P.O. TALIPARAMBA VIA., KANNUR (DIST).** **5. RAJILESH A.P. ALAYULLA NEELAM PARAMBATH HOUSE, NIDUMPARAMBA P.O. KALLACHI (VIA)., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673506.** **6. ABHINAND K. KAMMANGAT HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O. NADUVANNUR (VIA)-673614.** **7. AJITH T.K. THEKKEKALATHUPOYIL HOUSE, CHENOLI P.O. PERAMBRA (VIA)-673525.** **8. ARUNKUMAR A.M. ALAKKATTUMEETHAL HOUSE, KALAPATHUR P.O.-673524.** **9. NIDHEESH C.V. POLLAMTHADAM HOUSE, P.R.NAGAR P.O., VELIYAMBRA KANNUR-670 702.** **10. RENJITH M., SREEJITH BHAVAN, VALIYAPARAMBU, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695124.** **11. KUMAR G. LEKSHMI BAVANAM, ARATTUPUZHA (N) P.O., THRIKKUNNAPUZHA (VIA)., ALAPPUZHA-690515.** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 9489 of 2013 (I) -2-** ## **12. SHAMEEM S.** - **NEDIYAKALAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUMMANNOOR P.O. KONNI-689691.** ## **13. SAIJU V., VADAKARA THEKATHIL, PUTHUKUNNAM P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690516.** ## **14. ASHISH V. PILLAI** **KATTOOR PADINJATTATHIL, EDAKKAD P.O., EDAKKAD KOLLAM-691552.** ## **15. RAFEEK H.** **PARAYAMPOTTA HOUSE, KUNDUKAD, KIZHAKKENHERY P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678684.** ## **16. SANJAY R.** **NAMBANTHODI, MUDALIYAR STREET, SHORANUR-679121.** **17. LENIN RAJENDRAN E. ELATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PALLAM POST, PALLIKKAL PIN-679532, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **18. JAYAKUMAR K.S.** **KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, CHANGANKARY, EDATHUA ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** ## **2. REGIONAL DIRECTOR** **STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA-KERALA REGION 1ST FLOOR, E WING, KENDRIYA SECTION BANGALORE-560034.** ## **3. DIRECTOR GENERAL** - **BORDER SECURITY FORCE, BLOCK NO.10, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** **4. DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BLOCK NO.1, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** **...3/-** **WP(C).No. 9489 of 2013 (I) -3-** ## **5. DIRECTOR GENERAL** **CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, BLOCK NO.13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.** ## **6. DIRECTOR GENERAL** **SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.** ## **7. DIRECTOR GENERAL,** **ASSAM RIFLES, LAITHUMKARH POST, SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011.** ## **8. DIRECTOR GENERAL** **INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE, BLOCK NO.2 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI.** ## **9. UNION OF INDIA** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE NEW DELHI-110001.** ## **R1 to R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI** **BY ADV. SRI. T. SANJAY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2014, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 22481/2013, THE COURT ON 05-06-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...4/-** ## **WP(C).No. 9489 of 2013 (I)** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** ## **-------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 12-2-2011.** - **EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 10-12-2011.** - **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RESULT OF PET IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-10-2011 OF THE IGP (MED) MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION DATED 17-10-2011 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE MARK LIST.** - **EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST.** - **EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE CANDIDATES SELECTED IN THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION.** - **EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE EXTRACT OF REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS CANDIDATES WHO HAVE BEEN SENT FOR TRAINING IN FEBRUARY 2013.** - **EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE EXTRACT OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO PASSED IN THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND WERE SENT FOR TRAINING ON 15-3-2013.** - **EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-9-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2-1-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.** **(Contd...)** ## **WP(C).No. 9489 of 2013 (I) -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.18-1-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.** **EXHIBIT P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 3-12-2011 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15-12-2013 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1-3-2013 IN WP(C) NO. 5741/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **----------------------------------------------** **EXT. R2(a) : COPY OF THE WRITE -UP PUBLISHED BY THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF CONSTABLE (GENERAL DUTY), IN BORDER SECURITY FORCE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, DATED 18.11.2011.** **EXT. R2(b) : COPY OF THE WRITE-UP PUBLISHED BY THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF RIFLEMAN (GENERAL DUTY) IN ASSAM RIFLES DATED 14.3.2011.** **EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN IA NO. 4146/2013 IN WP(C) NO. 5741/2013 DATED 23.3.2013.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ **==> picture [260 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5[th ] day of June, 2014 ## **J U D G M E N T** These writ petitions are filed by writ petitioners, who are 24 in number, alleging that they have been included in the select list for appointment as Constables (GD)and Rifleman (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces and the refusal to appoint them, in spite of having vacancies in the quota earmarked for the State of Kerala, is illegal. W.P.(C). No.22481/2013 is filed by the female candidates, who have applied for selection. The petitioners, therefore, seek for a declaration that the above refusal is illegal and unsustainable and, for a consequential relief of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them against those vacancies. 2. The petitioners, admittedly, have applied for recruitment for the year 2011 pursuant to the notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e. on behalf of the Staff Selection Commission, it is stated that the `W.P.(C).Nos` .9489 & 22481 of 2013 ## **-:2:-** petitioners are not included in the select list and they have only secured lower marks than the cut off marks prescribed for Reserve List 2. It is further contended that the respondents are not trying to fill up vacancies of the year 2011 from the Recruitment of 2012-13. 4. It appears that cut off marks fixed to Reserve List 2 is based on the number of vacancies available and not with reference to the criteria for selection. 5. This matter was taken up along with the connected matters, which were filed by the candidates for the recruitment year 2012. It is admitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs that there are 21 vacancies in the State of Kerala in the year 2011 and the same will be considered for the recruitment year 2012. This, in fact, affirms the claim of the petitioners and discredit the statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2 contending that vacancies of the year 2011 would be considered for the year 2011 and not for the year 2012-13. That being so, this Court has to conclude that 21 vacancies are available for recruitment in the year 2011-12 and, necessarily, those vacancies are to be reckoned for selecting candidates among the applicants for the year 2011 itself. `W.P.(C).Nos` .9489 & 22481 of 2013 ## **-:3:-** 6. It is well settled position of law, when vacancies are available for the notified year, those vacancies are to be filled from the candidates who have applied based on the notification issued for the recruitment of that year. It is apposite to quote decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [(1993) 2 SCC 573]** , see para.8, which reads as follows: “It is true that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment (State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha; Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana; State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmikutty) but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. Having sent a requisition/request to the Commission to select a particular number of candidates for a particular category, - in pursuance of which the Commission issues a notification, holds a written test, conducts interviews, prepares a select list and then communicates to the Government -- the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullify the whole exercise and tell the candidates when they complain that they have no legal right to appointment. We do not think that `W.P.(C).Nos` .9489 & 22481 of 2013 ## **-:4:-** any Government can adopt such a stand with any justification today.” Considering the number of petitioners involved in these writ petitions, respondents are bound to consider the petitioners for the selection for the year 2011. Respondents also have not stated split up vacancies available for male and female candidates separately. Therefore, all the writ petitions have to be considered in accordance with the vacancies that are earmarked for male and female candidates. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed, directing respondents to consider the petitioners for selection for the recruitment year 2011, based on their merit and satisfying other conditions for selection. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** ms