VELAYUDHAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of considerable importance in service law arises for consideration in this case. A vacancy was notified to the Public Service Commission as, when the vacancy arose, under the Government Order governing appointments to the vacancy, nobody in service was entitled to be promoted and appointed in the vacancy. But before the candidate recruited by the Public Service Commission was actually appointed in the vacancy, the Government Order governing appointments to the vacancy was amended and persons in service became entitled for promotion to the post. The question is whether the appointment of the Public Service Commission recruit is bad in law and, on the basis of the subsequent amendment to the Government order, any person in service who has become entitled for promotion can insist that he should be given appointment in the vacancy.

(2.) The petitioner in the original petition is the appellant in the writ appeal. The appellant is an Electrician in the Government Transport and Equipment Organisation, Muvattupuzha. He is a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering and has experience in Automobile Workshop. A post of for man became vacant from 22-12-1976. As per G O. (MS) No. 13/75/DD dated 29-1-1975 (Ext. R1), which governs the appointments in the establishment, nobody was entitled to be promoted and appointed in the vacancy. Hence, on 17-1-1977 the vacancy was notified to the Kerala Public Service Commission. Thereafter, by G. O (MS) No. 91/78/DD dated 14-6-1978 (Ext. P1) revised notifications and methods of appointments for the post of Foreman were fixed. After the issue of Ext. P1, the General Foreman of the establishment sent Ext. P2 communication to the Ist respondent State pointing out that the appellant petitioner can be promoted and appointed as Foreman in the vacancy. As the Ist respondent did not do anything in the matter, the appellant petitioner approached this Court with the original petition claiming the vacancy of Foreman and also for staying the appointment, if any, of Foreman by direct recruitment.

(3.) Notice on the original petition was ordered on 2-8-1978 On the very same date, this Court ordered an interim stay of appointment to the post of Foreman which, according to the 1st respondent, was received only on the afternoon of 11-8-1978. Before that, on the forenoon of 11-8-1978 the 2nd respondent, advised by the Public Service Commission, was appointed as Foreman. The appellant then amended the original petition to challenge the appointment of the 2nd respondent (Ext. P3).