AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ost of Lower Primary/Upper Primary School Assistants. On 5.6.1997, the Commission prepared a rank list, which was in force from 5.6.1997 to 5.6.2000. Appellants' name figured therein. The vacancies, however, were not filled up. However, as no vacancy was filled up by the Deputy Director of Education, writ petitions were filed before the Kerala High Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Deputy Director of Education to report all the vacancies to the Commission so as to enable it to advise the respective candidates pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof the appointing authority may issue offers of appointment. It is stated that the appellants were parties therein. 4. On or about 3.6.2000, pursuant to the direction of the High Court, dated 22.5.2000, the Deputy Director of Education reported 125 vacancies and on or about 5.6.2000, he reported further 50 vacancies just before the expiry of the rank list with a note that they were anticipated vacancies. However, as the vacancies were shown as anticipated vacancies, the Commission could not issue letter of advise against those 175 vacancies reported by the Deputy Director of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Division Bench of the said Court, which was marked as Writ Appeal No. 53 of 2005. Before the High Court, however, appellants got themselves impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 respectively. The said Writ Appeal was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment directing the Commission to advise in respect of 18 of the original petitioners who had filed the writ petition bearing O.P. No. 28082 of 2002 to quash the Government Order dated 15.1.2002. No direction was issued in respect of those who got themselves impleaded as parties therein including the appellants herein. 10. Appellants are, thus, before us, contending that as their names appeared in the `rank list' and they being seniors to some of the original writ petitioners they should also be directed to be appointed. 11. Ms. Malini Poduval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit: i. the High Court committed a serious error of law in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that as the appellants are similarly situated with that of the original writ petitioners to whom the State Government agreed to g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al number of vacancies being in dispute, it is difficult for us to opine as has been contended by the learned counsel that all such vacancies existed. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the State conceded that 18 original writ petitioners may be appointed stating that they were the actual beneficiaries of the judgment. Such a stand on the part of the State was accepted. The Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the other contentions raised by the parties thereto. No factual foundation, therefore, has been laid before us for arriving at the conclusion that all the 125 vacancies existed. 15. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. [See Pitta Naveen Kumar & ors. vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & ors. (2006) 10 SCC 261]. 16. The state as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the concerned candidate will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. [See Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise..." In State of Rajasthan & ors. vs. Jagdish Chopra [(2007) 8 SCC 161], this Court held: "9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (2006) 12 SCC 561, this Court opined: (SCC p.564, para 9) "9. In....