State of Kerala v. Jayesh K

Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) – Cadre Strength Fixation – Validity of Government Order – Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) Order – Expired Rank List – Appointment Authority Discretion – KAS Rules, 2018 – Rule 4, Rule 7, Rule 9, Rule 18 – Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) – Article 14, Article 16 of Constitution of India

Held: The High Court set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order directing the government to redetermine the cadre strength of Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Junior Time Scale (Trainees) and fill vacancies from an expired rank list. The government’s fixation of cadre strength at 105 posts, though not strictly compliant with Rule 4 of the KAS Rules, 2018, which mandates 10% of 2nd Gazetted Posts, was upheld due to genuine reasons, including anomalies in the Schedule and pending rule amendments. Rule 9(b) was clarified as irrelevant to cadre fixation, and Rule 18(b) required inclusion of specific direct recruitment posts. Relying on Kerala PSC v. Sheejamol M.C. [2020(5)KHC 555], the court held that an appointing authority may refrain from filling vacancies from a valid rank list for bona fide reasons, and no direction can be issued to fill vacancies from an expired rank list absent mala fide intent. The Tribunal’s order was unsustainable for failing to establish arbitrary or mala fide conduct by the government.

Result: Original petitions allowed; Tribunal’s orders set aside.

This judgment of the High Court of Kerala, dated April 11, 2025, addressing multiple petitions (OP(KAT) Nos. 14/2024, 47/2024, 51/2024, 70/2024, 87/2024, 93/2024, 95/2024, 115/2024, 123/2024, 124/2024, 132/2024, 276/2024, 304/2024, 343/2024, 354/2024) challenging orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT). The core issue involves the fixation of the cadre strength for the Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Junior Time Scale (Trainees) at 105 posts, as set by the government vide order dated February 6, 2021, which candidates argued violated the KAS Rules, 2018.

Key Points of the Judgment:

1. Background:
   • Candidates challenged the government’s decision to fix the KAS cadre strength at 105, claiming it was lower than required under the KAS Rules, 2018.
   • The Kerala Administrative Tribunal, in its order dated October 13, 2023, directed the government to redetermine the cadre strength as of October 1, 2022, per Rule 4 and Rule 18 of the KAS Rules and fill remaining vacancies.
   • The government and the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) filed petitions against the Tribunal’s orders.
2. Legal Framework:
   • Rule 4(a) of the KAS Rules stipulates that the cadre strength at the entry level is 10% of the sanctioned strength of 2nd Gazetted Posts in specified departments (Schedule I), including higher-grade posts and ratio promotions.
   • The 2019 Amendment Rules reduced the total posts in Schedule II from 1258 to 1206, excluding posts inadvertently included.
   • Rule 9(b) was clarified as not relevant to cadre strength fixation but pertains to ensuring one-third of annual vacancies in 2nd Gazetted Posts are reserved for KAS, with a cap at 10% of total posts.
   • Rule 7(e) mandates rounding off the 10% figure to the next lower integer, affecting cadre calculations.
   • Rule 18(b) assigns all posts for direct recruitment of Deputy Collectors, Administrative Officers, District Educational Officers, and Financial Assistants to the KAS cadre.
3. Contentions:
   • Candidates: Argued that 10% of 1206 posts equals 120.6, and additional posts (e.g., 26 from Deputy Collectors, Administrative Officers, etc.) should have been included, making the cadre strength higher than 105.
   • Government: Claimed authority under Rule 4(e) to adjust cadre strength and cited anomalies in the inclusion of 3rd and 4th Gazetted Posts in the Schedule. A committee was reviewing the KAS Rules for amendments.
   • PSC: Supported the government, emphasizing compliance with the Tribunal’s interim orders to report vacancies, though delayed.
4. Court’s Analysis:
   • The court rejected the government’s reliance on Rule 9(b) for cadre fixation, affirming that Rule 4(a) mandates a fixed 10% of 2nd Gazetted Posts.
   • It acknowledged the rounding-off provision in Rule 7(e) but noted exceptions in Rule 18(b), requiring inclusion of all direct recruitment posts for certain categories.
   • The government’s fixation at 105 was not strictly per KAS Rules, but the court found genuine reasons for the discrepancy, such as unintended inclusion of higher-level posts in the Schedule.
   • The court referenced Kerala PSC v. Sheejamol M.C. (2020), stating that an appointing authority can choose not to fill vacancies from a valid rank list for bona fide reasons, and courts cannot compel appointments unless the authority’s actions are arbitrary or mala fide.
   • The Tribunal’s order was flawed as it directed appointments from an expired rank list (valid until October 8, 2022) without evidence of mala fide intent by the government.
5. Conclusion:
   • The High Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the Tribunal’s orders.
   • The government’s cadre strength fixation at 105, though not fully compliant with KAS Rules, was upheld due to sufficient reasons (anomalies in the Schedule and pending amendments).
   • No direction was issued to fill vacancies from the expired rank list, as the government’s actions were not arbitrary or mala fide.

Outcome:

The impugned orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal were quashed, and the government’s cadre strength fixation was sustained, with no further appointments ordered from the expired rank list.