Background

The dispute revolved around the filling of NJD (non-joining duty) vacancies for the post of Non-Vocational Teacher (English) in the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education (VHSE) Department. KPSC had created two ranked lists – one for direct recruitment and another for recruitment through transfer (from qualified High School Assistants and LP/UP Assistants). The direct recruitment ranked list expired on February 2, 2020, but the by-transfer category list remained active.

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal decided that the vacancies in NJD, which arose after the expiry of the direct recruitment list, should be filled from the by-transfer category. The KPSC challenged this decision and argued that the vacancies should be filled based on the list of the general category.

Argument

KPSC argued that NJD vacancies have to be treated separately and re-notified for general category appointments as they arise after the expiry of the direct recruitment list. Filling these vacancies from the bi-transfer category would undermine the list-based system which ensures fair distribution of services between different categories. The KPSC argued that re-notification was necessary to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process, as vacancies in the NJD could affect tour lists and general category appointments.

The respondents argued that since the by-transfer category list was still active when the NJD vacancies arose, the vacancies should be allotted to that list. They argued that the tribunal’s decision upheld the rights of qualified teachers in the by-transfer category, ensuring they had access to available services.

The court’s reasoning

The court’s analysis focused on the importance of preserving the roster system and the established recruitment procedures. It stressed that NJD vacancies are inherently linked to the general recruitment process and cannot be treated as independent or transferable to another recruitment list. The court noted that when a general recruitment list expires, all vacancies, including NJD vacancies, must be reapplied and filled under the same rules applicable to the original recruitment.

The Court held that allowing NJD vacancies to be filled from the by-transfer category would create a discrepancy in the roster system. The list based recruitment ensures fair and equitable distribution of posts especially for reserved categories and general candidates. By disregarding the general recruitment list and assigning NJD vacancies to the by-transfer list, KAT’s order disrupted this carefully balanced system. The court emphasized that NJD vacancies have to be treated as part of the general category cycle, even if they arise after the expiry of a ranked list. It reasoned that these vacancies were not “new” posts but part of an ongoing recruitment cycle that needed to be completed within the scope of the job list.

The court also pointed out that the seniority system plays a crucial role in preventing favoritism or discrimination in appointments. Following this system ensures that vacancies are filled in a transparent and fair manner, in line with constitutional mandates. The court emphasized that the recruitment of teachers, especially in critical positions such as non-professional teachers, must follow established protocols to maintain confidence in public appointments.

Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the transfer list, which is still active, should have been used to fill vacancies in the NJD. It clarified that the lifespan of a ranked list determines its applicability to all vacancies arising within that period. When the general list expires, all remaining vacancies must be resubmitted and cannot be redirected to another category. The recruitment processes must be consistent and follow a logical sequence, respecting the expiry of the lists and the boundaries between different recruitment categories. Thus, the Kerala High Court set aside the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and held that the vacancies in the NJD on the post of Non-Vocational Teacher (English) could not be filled from the by-transfer category after the expiry of the general recruitment list.

Decided to: 21 October 2024

Quote: 2024:KER:77975, KPSC v. Lasitha AK

Petitioner’s counsel: Adv. PC Sasidharan

Counsel for the defendants: Adv. Molty Majeed, Adv. KH Asif, Adv. Ruben George Rock and Adv. Nisha Bose

Click here to read/download the order