Recruitment ratio rules prevail over conflicting service rules, and select-list candidates have no vested right to appointment

Note 3 to Rule 5 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules was treated as governing the computation of direct-recruitment vacancies by applying the prescribed ratio to cadre strength, and not merely to existing vacancies. On that basis, the Special Rules were held not to displace the amended General Rules where the latter clearly removed ambiguity in the recruitment method. The 1992 amendment was also held to apply to selections completed after its commencement, because a candidate in a select list does not acquire a vested right to appointment contrary to the rules then in force. The amendment was therefore upheld as applicable to the selection process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Note 3 to Rule 5 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 governed the computation of vacancies for direct recruitment in preference to the contrary understanding of the Special Rules. (ii) Whether the 1992 amendment to the General Rules could affect candidates whose names were included in the select list after the amendment came into force.

Issue (i): Whether Note 3 to Rule 5 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 governed the computation of vacancies for direct recruitment in preference to the contrary understanding of the Special Rules.

Analysis: Rule 5 was enacted to regulate recruitment where appointment is partly by direct recruitment and partly by transfer, and Note 3 was inserted to remove ambiguity by directing that the prescribed ratio or percentage must be applied to the cadre strength and not to the vacancies existing at that time. The language of the note was treated as clear and universal in its application to cases where recruitment ratios are fixed. In that setting, the Special Rules were held not to create a repugnancy that displaced Note 3, and the computation method in the amended General Rules was held to control.

Conclusion: The amended General Rules governed the method of computation, and the challenge based on repugnancy failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the 1992 amendment to the General Rules could affect candidates whose names were included in the select list after the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The amendment was not treated as operating retrospectively on a completed recruitment process. It was held to clarify the manner of calculating the quota for appointments and to apply after its commencement. A candidate placed in a select list was held not to acquire an absolute vested right to appointment, and the Government remained entitled to determine appointments according to the prevailing service rules at the time the selection was completed.

Conclusion: The amendment validly applied to the selection process and did not take away any enforceable right of the selected candidates.

Final Conclusion: The amendment to the General Rules was upheld, the contrary view of the Division Bench was set aside, and the order of the Single Judge was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later general service rule clearly prescribes the method of computing recruitment ratios to remove ambiguity, it prevails over an earlier special rule to the extent necessary, and a candidate in a select list has no vested right to appointment contrary to the rules in force when the selection is completed.

---