WA No.2155 of 2023 (Anjana S. and others v. State of Kerala, Kerala Financial Corporation & Kerala Public Service Commission and others)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anu Sivaraman, J.
- C. Pratheep Kumar, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2023-12-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Writ Appeal is dismissed; the interim relief declined. All other issues are left open to be decided in the writ petition.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Anjana S.
- Linekker M.R.
- Nimmy V.U.
- Soosan Babu P
- Sreenisha K.C
- Riji T.J.
- Manikuttan Nair S
- Abhi C Sekhar
- Rathendran M.T.
- Nisha S.
- Renjith P
- Sainas Rasheed
- Subitha K.P.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Kerala Financial Corporation represented by its Managing Director
- Kerala Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary
- Jayas N. Deputy Manager, KFC
- Sheena K Deputy Manager, KFC
- Dinesh Kumar N Deputy Manager, KFC
- Vishnu S., Deputy Manager, KFC
- Cini C.V., Deputy Manager, KFC
- Praveen Kumar V. Deputy Manager, KFC
- Jafar K. Deputy Manager, KFC
- Gopakumar G Deputy Manager, KFC
- Vinod Kumar B.B Assistant Manager, KFC
- Chandrahassan S Assistant Manager, KFC
- Suresh V.K Assistant Manager, KFC
- Sajith Kumar P Assistant Manager, KFC
- Sibiraj V.U Deputy Manager, KFC
- Liyakat Ali A Assistant Manager, KFC
- Praji K Deputy Manager, KFC
- Jaisingh Thomas Assistant Manager, KFC
- Reghu V.T Assistant Manager, KFC
- Juny John Assistant Manager, KFC
- Beegam Haseena U Assistant Manager, KFC
- Rajesh Modapllasseri Assistant Manager, KFC
- Biju V.R Assistant Manager, KFC
- Rajeesh P.K Assistant Manager, KFC
- Ramesh K.R., Assistant Manager, KFC
- Dileesh P.V., Assistant Manager, KFC
- Saji G Assistant Manager, KFC
- Rajeev M Assistant Manager, KFC
- Seena P.D. Assistant Manager, KFC
- Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, Sr.GP
- Sri.P.C.Sasidharan
- Smt. Dhanya P. Asokan
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Nisha George
- • A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan
- • George Poonthottam (Sr.)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, Sr.GP
- • Sri. P.C. Sasidharan
- • Smt. Dhanya P. Asokan
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ appeal challenges an interim order in WP(C) No.1752/2023 whereby the Kerala High Court declined to report vacancies of Assistant Manager in the Kerala Financial Corporation for advice from Ext.P4 ranked list, which was due to expire on 14.12.2023. The appellants contend that the amendment of qualifications (Ext.P7) has not been incorporated into the Special Rules, and that Ext.P4 vacancies should be reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission for filling from Ext.P4. They argue there is no fixed ratio of direct recruitment versus promotion/transfer, and rely on Regulation 9(iii) to justify filling posts earmarked for direct recruitment by promotion, transfer or deputation. They also rely on a Supreme Court decision, Anurag Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2023) 3 SCC 773, to buttress the claim that amended qualifications must be possessed. The respondents/the State and KFC submit that the qualifications have already been amended; Regulation 9(iii) permits alternative modes of appointment; Ext.P4 list came into force on 15.12.2020, and the petition’s contentions are untenable. The Single Judge’s reasoning is found satisfactory by the Division Bench, though several issues in the writ petition are left open. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the interim relief denied.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contend that Ext.P7 amended qualifications have not been incorporated into the Special Rules, and that Ext.P4 ranked list was not properly utilized to fill the posts. They assert there is no fixed ratio between direct recruitment and promotion/transfer; Regulation 9(iii) permits filling posts earmarked for direct recruitment through promotion/transfer/deputation, at the KFC's discretion. They rely on Anurag Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023) 3 SCC 773 to support the position that amended qualifications must be possessed. They submit that Ext.P11 shows withdrawal of Ext.R2(d), and that the interim relief should have been granted.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the qualifications have already been amended; Regulation 9(iii) allows alternative modes of appointment including promotion/transfer/deputation, and the Ext.P4 list, in force since 15.12.2020, can be used for filling vacancies. They rely on established regulations and argue that the petition fails on merits; the cited Supreme Court decision (Anurag Sharma) is not shown to govern the current facts. The court should defer to the amended qualifications and the existing rules; the interim order declining relief is proper.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anurag Sharma and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others | [(2023) 3 SCC 773] | Mentioned Only | Cited by the parties to argue about amended qualifications; the court did not rely on its holding to decide the case. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 WA No.2155 of 2023 (Anjana S. and others v. State of Kerala, Kerala Financial Corporation & Kerala Public Service 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.