R. JAYARAMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 29-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 686 
R. JAYARAMA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.10098-10102 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law - Selection - By Public Service Commission 
- Determination of seniority - Appellants were selected 
C against earlier vacancies but not appointed along with others 
of the same batch - They were appointed subsequently -
Claim of the appellants that were entitled to be placed above 
those who were appointed against the subsequent vacancies 
- Seniority claimed by appellants from date of advice by 
D Public Service Commission for their appointment - High 
Court held the seniority of the appellants from date of 
Government order dated 17-06-1999 - Held: The claim of the 
appellants is not tenable - Selection by the Public Service 
Commission is merely recommendatory and does not imply 
E automatic appointment - The appointing authorities should 
not give notional seniority without valid reason, from a 
retrospective date, which would affect the seniority of those 
who have already entered into service - Seniority has to be 
reckoned on the basis of actual availability of post - To avert 
F the discharge of the appellants, the Government brought an 
order safeguarding their interest and the same was upheld by 
the High Court by retair.·1g the services of the appellant w.e.f. 
17-06-1999 - Inasmuch as exemption and relaxation was 
ordered by the Government without giving any opportunity to 
anyone, particularly, the promotees, at best, the Government 
G order operates prospectively - If applied retrospectively it 
would adversely affect the seniority of persons who were 
already promoted - Kera/a State and Subordinate Services 
Rules, 1958 - Rule 39. 
H 
686 
R. JAYARAMA AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 
687 
AND ORS. 
Interim order - Dismissal of main petition - Effect on A 
interim order passed therein - Held: After dismissal of the 
main petition, interim order also got vacated. 
As per G.O.(MS) No. 171/741Home dated 18.11.1974, 
50% of the posts of Sub Inspectors in the District Armed 
B 
Reserve (Reserve Sub Inspectors) were to be filled up by 
direct recruitment. The Kerala State Public Service 
Commission invited applications for direct recruitment of 
Reserve Sub Inspectors. The appellants applied for the 
said post. After the written test, physical test and 
interview, a rank list was prepared in which the appellants 
C 
were .also included. 
Candidates in the rank list filed O.P. before the High 
Court and the High Court by an interim order directed the 
Director General of Police to report vacancies to the PSC 
D 
and thereafter issued .another interim order to the PSC to 
advise candidates for such vacancies. The High Court 
ultimately dismissed the petitions. In view of the same, the 
Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission informed . 
the Government for discharging the candidates advised. 
E 
The Government, vide G.O.(Rt) No. 3241/99/Home dated 
17.06.1999, issued orders to retain them in service by 
invoking Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate 
Services Rules, 1958. Accordingly, they were assigned 
seniority as Reserve Sub Inspectors with effect from their 
F 
date of advise and included their names in the finalized 
seniority list of Reserve Sub Inspectors. However, some 
of the promotees filed O.P. before the High Court with a 
prayer to revise the seniority assigned to the directly 
recruited Assistant Sub Inspector promoted as Reserve 
G 
Sub Inspector before completing five years of service. 
Another O.P. was filed against the seniority given to 
directly recruited Reserve Sub Inspectors alleging that 
they were appointed in excess of the 50 % quota for 
direct recruits. 
, 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court found that only 7 candidates against 
the candidates advised and appointed as per the interim 
orders were to be placed in the 50% quota for direct 
recruits and the remaining persons were eligible for 
seniority with effect from 17.06.1999, i.e., the date of the 
B Government order. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended by the 
appellant that the relevant date to retain them in service 
was on the date of advise i.e. 04.01.1993 and not the date 
of the Government Order, i.e. 17 .06.1999. It was 
C contended that the appellants, who were selected against 
earlier vacancies but could not be appointed along with 
others of the same batch due to certai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.