WA No. 1981 of 2023

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **WA NO.1981 OF 2023 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8231/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10.8.2023** **------------------** ## **- APPELLANTS/PETITIONER :** 1 RAMESHKUMAR.J, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI UTHRADAM, PUTHUKKADU P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 555. 2 GIREESHKUMAR.V, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN PARAPPADIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUKKADU P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 555. 3 ANILKUMAR.N, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.NANUPILLAI, ARCHANA BHAVAN, CHEMMAKKADU P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 601. BY ADVS. B.RENJITHKUMAR CLARA SHERIN FRANCIS SANGEERTHANA M. ## **- RESPONDENTs/RESPONDENTS :** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 3 DIRECTOR GENERAL (FIRE & RESCUE) THAMPANOOR MASJI ROAD, CHENKALCHOOLA COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 4 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE, WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 2 :- KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001. 5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 574. 6 THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 008 7 THE ASSISTANT CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001 8 JAYAKUMAR. S S/O.SANKARAN PILLAI, HOME GUARD NO.A.318, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, NANGIRKULANGARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 513 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT : DEVIKRIPA, MUTHUKULAM, NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 513 9 SANTHOSH KUMAR.K. G S/O.K.M.GOPINATHAN, HOME GUARD NO.N.129, FIRE & RESCUE STATION, SEETHATHODU, ANGAMOOZHI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 667 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT : KUTTIYANICKAL HOUSE, MAROORPALAM, KONNI. P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689 691. 10 ASHOK KUMAR. B S/O.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, HOME GUARD NO.T.57, THUMPA POLICE STATION, STATION KADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 583 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT : PAZHAYA NETTAYATHU VEEDU, NANNATTU KAVU, POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 584 BY ADVS. JINSON OUSEPH S.VIJAYAN(K/342/2011) V.PRINCE DEV(K/1277/2001) C.RAJESWARA KUMAR(K/461/2012) CHITRA VIJAYAN(K/849/2016) BASIL MECHERY(K/896/2017) NIMISHA GEORGE(K/711/2021) AMALENDU N.S.(K/001758/2022) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 3 :- ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 4th day of December, 2023** ## **Anu Sivaraman, J.** Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Government Pleader. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the observations contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that a ranked list cannot be allowed to continue _ad infinitum_ cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there was initially no time limit provided for the ranked list. It is submitted that Exts.P2, P3 and P8 had led to a situation where the appellants had a reasonable expectation that the number of vacancies would be increased and therefore, they would be appointed from the list already prepared. It is submitted that their representations had later been rejected by Ext.P10 order of the Government and that the contentions raised by them on the strength of Exts.P2 and P3 had not been considered by the Government while rejecting their representations. It is submitted that though a new list has now been prepared, the same has not been notified. It is, therefore, contended that the persons included in the earlier ranked list may be accorded weightage for appointment when appointments are WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 4 :- being made to Home Guards in Kollam District in view of the fact that they had been included in the earlier list. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the preparation of a list of Home Guards for appointment in Kollam District had been carried out specifically taking note of the fact that only 200 posts of Home Guards were available in the Kollam District. It is submitted that 30% of such vacancies have to be filled up by appointing woman Home Guards and that there were 232 persons included in the Home Guard ranked list published on 2.8.2018. 39 persons had been appointed from the list at the time when the counter affidavit was filed and the appellants are included at serial Nos.75, 70 and 69 in the list and the rank numbers stated by them in the writ petition are incorrect. It is stated that the request of the appellants that the number of Home Guards to be appointed in the Kollam District should be raised to 400 as also their request that the retirement age should be reduced had been specifically considered by the Government and Ext.P10 order was passed rejecting those contentions. It is submitted that persons included in the list have absolutely no right to contend that they should be appointed from the list regardless of the number of existing vacancies. It is stated that in view of the fact that there are only 200 vacancies available in Kollam District and even if the list WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 5 :- had been operated beyond the two years, the appellants who are ranked at serial Nos.75, 70 and 69 would not get appointment. The period of validity of the list was fixed as two years by Ext.P8 and there was no challenge against the same. It is, therefore, contended that the appellants can have no claim for any preference in the matter of appointment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on a judgment of this Court in **State of Jharkhand and others** v. **Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and another** [2020 SCC Online SC 968] to contend that the appellants had a legitimate expectation that they would get appointment from the list. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appellants were persons included in a ranked list which was admittedly prepared in the year 2018. The prayer in the writ petition was only for a direction to appoint the petitioners as Home Guards in Kollam District by increasing the vacancies as 400 and limiting the upper age limit as 60. Ext.P8 proceedings by which the period of validity of the ranked list had been limited to two years was not under challenge in the writ petition. Pursuant to an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, Ext.P9 representation preferred by the appellants had been considered and Ext.P10 order WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 6 :- was passed by the Government rejecting their request both for increasing the number of posts of Home Guards as also for reducing the upper age limit. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants was specifically with regard to the prospective effect given to the rebate/deduction from electricity duty offered under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2012. The observations contained therein with regard to legitimate expectation of consumers as against the State where there was a proffered policy of the State Government have absolutely no application to the facts available in the instant case where legitimate expectation is sought to be raised on the basis of inclusion in a select list. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we notice that the learned Single Judge had considered the contentions advanced and found that no relief as sought for in the writ petition could be granted. However, the Government was set at liberty to take a decision on the representation pending before them. It is clear that the representation preferred by the appellants have also been considered and rejected by Ext.P10 order dated 7.6.2023. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the prayer now made in I.A. No.1/2023 to direct the 4[th] respondent to give weightage to the candidates included in the earlier ranked WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 7 :- list with the age wise seniority and physical fitness is completely devoid of merits. We find no sustainable grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge or to grant any reliefs as sought for in the I.A. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE** Jvt/4.12.2023 WA NO.1981 OF 2023 -: 8 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WA 1981/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS :- Exhibit-R8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 190/2009/HOME DATED 26.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE HOME DEPARTMENT Exhibit-R8(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO. 84/2016/HOME DATED 3.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE HOME DEPARTMENT