AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by a judgment dated 27th May, 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 16294 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the present writ appeal. The abovementioned writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage.
The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that in response to a notification issued by the third respondent sometime in the year 1983 he applied for the post of Village Assistant in the Revenue and Civil Supplies Department. The appellant claims that pursuant to the selection process so completed he was shown as the 18th successful candidate. However, admittedly he was not appointed pursuant to such selection.
It appears that the appellant made various representations to the State of Kerala and the Kerala Public Service Commission regarding his non-appointment, the details of which are not available from the records, nor are they relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present appeal. It appears that in the year 2000, the appellant had earlier approached this Court by way of O.P. No. 5978 of 2000. It is not clear from the records as to what was the relief sought in the writ petition, nor a copy of the judgment of the said writ petition is made available before us. On the other hand, it is stated in the memorandum of writ appeal that "this Hon''ble Court directed the Government to consider the matter and pass appropriate order". Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the State of Kerala passed Ext.P2 order dated 12.11.2001 appointing the appellant as L.D. Clerk/Village Assistant in Palakkad District and it appears that on making such appointment the State of Kerala invoked Rule 39 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules or in any other Rules or Government Orders the Government shall have power to deal with the case of any person or persons serving in a civil capacity under the Government of Kerala or any candidate for appointment to a service in such manner as may appear to the Government to be just and equitable:
Provided that where such rules or orders are applicable to the case of any person or persons, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him or them than that provided by those rules or orders. This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 17.12.1958.
It appears from the order dated 12.11.2001 that the appellant could not be appointed pursuant to the selection made in the year 1983 because of the fact that the vacancies which were sought to be filled up by the said selection process ceased to be available in view of certain later developments, i.e. repatriation of some other employees from some other departments, the details of which are not available from the records. But the fact remains that the State of Kerala did not choose to appoint the appellant herein pursuant to the said selection process. It is well settled in law that the mere selection does not confer any indispensable right of appointment to the appellant. It is always open to the State as an employer not to make appointment pursuant to the selection process if it has a valid reason for doing so.
The explanation given in Ext.P2 order, on the face of it, appears to be a valid explanation which was never challenged by the appellant at any point of time. On the other hand, the appellant accepted the appointment in the year 2001 which was made in relaxation of all the Rules concerning the appointment.
Subsequent to such appointment, the appellant was in service only for a period of approximately six years as by then he reached the age of superannuation relevant for the service to which he was appointed. On such terms the appellant claimed pensionary benefits which were denied on the ground that the appellant could not put in the minimum requisite service of ten years under the Kerala Service Rules. However, considering the various aspects of the matter, the State decided to grant him ex-gratia pension of Rs. 1200/- per month. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition with the prayers as follows:
(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent government authority to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of publication of rank list dated 27.6.1986 on the basis of promotion and also on the basis of pay fixation.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other order or direction directing the respondent to look into and enquire into Ext-P6 petition dated 25.4.09 filed before the respondent''s secretary and also direct to take decision in the matter.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other order or direction directing the respondent or government to review the matter and direct to consider to pay all benefits including pension w.e.f. the date of publication of rank list.
By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. In view of the facts narrated above and in the absence of any law which entitles the appellant to claim pension, at any rate, nothing is brought to our notice, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage.