Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed appeals by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against a High Court order directing appointments against 97 vacancies for Blacksmith Grade II. The sanctioned cadre strength was 800, with 395 substantive appointments. The Corporation requisitioned 405 vacancies from the Kerala Public Service Commission, which recommended 351 initially, then six more, and later twenty-three against non-joining vacancies. Respondents were empanelled at serial nos. 284 and 294, but appointments were made only up to rank 278. The rank list expired on 21.10.2017. The High Court held the Corporation obliged to fill requisitioned vacancies including those arising subsequently during the life of the rank list. The Supreme Court held that mere empanelment does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. The employer has discretion not to fill vacancies for valid reasons, such as financial crunch and skewed staff/bus ratio, which are genuine grounds. The court cannot substitute its views. Vacancies arising subsequently cannot be clubbed with the earlier requisition. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Indefeasible Right - Mere empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment - The employer has discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness - The court cannot substitute its views over that of the employer (Paras 4-5). B) Service Law - Mandamus - Subsequent Vacancies - Vacancies arising subsequently during the life of the rank list cannot be clubbed with earlier requisition and must be part of another selection process - Mandamus cannot be issued to fill such vacancies from the panel (Paras 4-5). C) Service Law - Financial Crunch - Valid Ground - Financial crunch and skewed staff/bus ratio are valid and genuine grounds for not making further appointments - Court cannot issue mandamus imposing obligations the employer is unable to meet (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus to make appointments because vacancies may exist, and whether mandamus can be issued to make appointments from the panel on vacancies that arose subsequently during the life of the rank list.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. High Court orders set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mere empanelment does not create indefeasible right to appointment
- Employer discretion not to fill vacancies for valid reasons
- Court cannot substitute its view over employer's financial constraints
