STATE OF KERALA versus A. LAKSHMIKUTTY & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 10-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
A. LAKSHMIKU1TY & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Judicial Review of the act of Governor not to appoint candidates 
for Dt. Judges' post as recommended by the High Court and Writ of 
Mandamus, issuance of-Whether the High Court could issue a writ of 
mandamus lo the Governor of the State directing him to act as per the 
, 
C recommendation of the High Court to fill up the vacancies in the posts - ~'\ 
of District Judges reserved for direct recruitment from the practising 
· 
D 
members of the bar under Article 233(1) of the Constitution-Consti-
tution of India, 1950, Articles 163(1), 226 and 233 read with Rul" 2(b) 
of the Kera/a State Higher Judicial Rules, 1961 and Rule 14(c) of the 
Kera/a State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. 
Rule 2(b) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 
requires that the cycle of rotation governing reservation of posts a• laid 
down in Rule 14(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 
1958 be followed in the selection and appoinbnent of District Judges by 
direct recruitment. Under Rule 14(c) appointments shall be made in the 
E order of rotation specified therein in every cycle of 20 vacancies. It is 
not often that there is no eligible candidate available from a community 
or group of communities. To meet such a situation, r. 15(a) provides 
that if a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any 
particular community or group of communities specified in the anne-
xure, the said community or group shall be passed over and the post 
F 
filled by a suitable candidate from the commuaity or group of com- ~ 
munities immediately next to the passed over community or group in . 
c 
the order of rotation. Rule 15(b) enjoins that if a suitable candidate is 
not available for selection from the group of communities classifiL'CI as 
"Scheduled Castes", in the tum allotted for such a group in the anne-
xure, the said group shall .be passed over and the post shall be filled by a 
G 
suitable candidate from the group of communities classified as 
"Scheduled Tribes" and vice-versa. If no suitable Candidate for selec-
tion in any of the two groups namely, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes is available, the vacancy has to be filled by open competition. 
Rule 15(c) provides for restoration of the benefit of the tum forfeited at 
the earliest opportunity. Proviso thereto however enjoins that the resto-
H 
ration of the benefit of the tum forfeited by the carry-forward rule, 
136 
~ 
STATE OF KERALA v. A. LAKSHMIKUTiv 
' 137 
1 
shall not exceed 50% of the vacancies to be filled in a particular year. 
A 
Rule 16 provides for sub-rotation among major groups of other back· 
ward clJISses. Rule 17(1) lays down the manner in which appointments 
have to be made from candidates belonging to other backward classes. 
Other backward classes are enumerated in List 111 to Part. I of the Rules 
and there are 73 communities or groups divided into ~ categories 
specified in Rule 17(1). Categories I to 7 are Ezhavas arid Thiyyas, 
B 
Y. 
Muslims, Latin-Catholics and Anglo-Indians, Nadars, Scheduled 
Castes converts to Christianity, Viswakarmas and Dhooravas. AH other : 
backward classes put together constitute the 8th category. Rule 17(2) 
. "'_provide5 for sub-rotation among the other hack..;ard classes. In the last 
' 
recruitment made in the year 1978 appointments had been made upto 
7th tum in the cycle of rotation. 
c 
--( 
The Committee of three senior most Judges constituted. hy the 
Full Court interviewed the cillldidates and drew up a list of fifteen 
candidates adjudged on ~ overall assessment of the merits: One of the 
fifteen· candidates Ms. Mary Teresa Dias belonging to the Latin 
Catholic community, however, was considered unsuitable for appoint· 
D 
ment by the Committee by a majority of 2: I. On an approval of the 
revised panel of fourteen candidates by the Full Court by a majority at 
a mP.eting held on 12.6.1984, the said list was sent totlie Chief Minister. 
As there was no candidate belonging to the 'Latin-Catholics and 
J.: 
Anglo-Indians', 'Other Backward Classes and 'Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes', 8th, 10th and 12th in the cycle of rotation, the first 
E 
vacancy haol be filled by reason of rule IS(a) of the Rules by a suitable 
candidate belonging to the community or group of 'Communities im· 
. 
mediately next to the passed over community or group i.e. by "'5pon· 
dent No.1 Smt. A. Laks
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.