Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 01-04-2019 in case of petitioner name Kerala State Road Transport Co vs Akhilesh V.S. & Others
| |

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Recruitment in Kerala Transport Corporation

Updated on

The case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Another v. Akhilesh V.S. & Others dealt with the legality of mandating public sector corporations to fill vacancies based on empaneled candidates. The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order that directed the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to make appointments from a rank list maintained by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC). The Court ruled that mere empanelment does not create an indefeasible right to appointment and that financial constraints are a valid ground for not filling vacancies.

This judgment reinforces the discretionary powers of public sector employers in hiring decisions, clarifying that courts should not interfere unless there is arbitrariness or discrimination.

Background of the Case

The KSRTC had sanctioned a cadre strength of 800 posts for Blacksmith Grade II. At the time of litigation, 395 vacancies had been filled through substantive appointments, and the Corporation had requisitioned the Kerala PSC to provide candidates for 405 more vacancies.

The Kerala PSC forwarded recommendations for 351 candidates initially, followed by 6 more and another 23 against non-joining vacancies. The respondents, who were empaneled at lower ranks (Nos. 284 and 294), filed a petition when appointments were made only up to Rank No. 278. They argued that the Corporation was obligated to appoint all rank-listed candidates.

The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing KSRTC to make appointments against the unfilled vacancies. KSRTC appealed the decision, arguing financial constraints and operational issues.

Key Legal Issues

  • Whether empaneled candidates have an absolute right to appointment.
  • Whether a mandamus can be issued to fill vacancies arising after the preparation of a rank list.
  • Whether financial constraints constitute a valid ground for not making appointments.

Arguments by the Appellants (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation)

  • The cadre strength does not determine the actual requirement for recruitment.
  • Empanelment in the rank list does not grant an automatic right to appointment.
  • Financial constraints and operational concerns justified the decision not to fill all vacancies.
  • The High Court erred in issuing a mandamus to fill 97 vacancies, including those that arose after the requisition was made.

Arguments by the Respondents (Empaneled Candidates)

  • Since KSRTC had made requisitions for 405 vacancies, it was obligated to fill all positions.
  • Denial of appointment to empaneled candidates violated principles of fairness and transparency.
  • Vacancies arising during the validity of the rank list should be filled from the same list.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of KSRTC, holding that empanelment does not guarantee employment and that financial and operational constraints justify non-recruitment.

Key observations:

  • The mere existence of vacancies does not create a right to appointment.
  • Employers have discretion not to fill all requisitioned vacancies, provided the decision is not arbitrary.
  • Financial constraints and staff-to-bus ratio concerns were valid reasons for limiting recruitment.
  • Vacancies arising subsequently cannot be clubbed with the original requisition unless a new selection process is initiated.

Key Judgment Excerpt:

“The mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment. The employer also has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness.”

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order and allowed KSRTC’s appeal.

Implications of the Judgment

  • The ruling affirms that empanelment does not guarantee automatic employment.
  • Public sector employers retain the discretion to adjust recruitment based on financial and operational conditions.
  • Courts should avoid interfering in recruitment decisions unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination.

Conclusion

This judgment provides clarity on the rights of empaneled candidates and the discretion of public sector employers in hiring decisions. The Supreme Court has reinforced that financial constraints and administrative reasons are valid considerations in recruitment, ensuring that courts do not impose undue obligations on government entities.


Petitioner Name: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Another.
Respondent Name: Akhilesh V.S. & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 01-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kerala State Road Tr vs Akhilesh V.S. & Othe Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts