Thereafter, for 20 vacancies reported on the basis of the interim order, 20 candidates from the rank list were advised on 04.01.1993.
Therefore, the appellants filed O.P. No.
Training of the candidates advised on 26.02.1992, 04.01.1993 and 03.03.1993 companymenced on 15.03.1993 and companypleted on 15.12.1993.
The appellants were also included in the rank list.
While the appellants were working as Sub Inspectors, he was working under them as Assistant Sub Inspector but he was placed above the appellants and shown at S.No.
On 05.06.1990, there were 207 posts of Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve.
P 2, rank list dated 05.06.1990, by pushing down the promotees including respondent No.3 herein below the appellants working out the ratio prescribed in the Government Order dated 18.11.1974.
Heard Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior companynsel for the appellants, Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned senior companynsel for the promotees and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior companynsel for the State of Kerala.
Since the case of 28 persons including the appellants who were advised on 04.01.1993 were number dealt with in a just and equitable manner, the Government having realized that 28 vacancies for which direct recruitment should have been made existed during the currency of rank list, issued Government Order dated 17.06.1999 invoking the power under Rule 39 of the KS SSR for companytinuing 28 persons in service based on the advise given by the PSC.
31240 of 2001 before the High Court on 15.10.2001 challenging the seniority list and sought for a direction to exclude 29 persons including the appellants who got retention through the order dated 17.06.1999 from the seniority list and promote them from reserve Sub Inspectors to reserve Inspectors.
In the said petition, on 29.06.1992, the High Court issued an order to report 28 vacancies to the PSC for being advised.
The promotees occupied the posts in excess of the ratio purely on a provisional basis.
2062 of 1991 directing the first respondent therein to report all the vacancies available to the PSC before 03.06.1991.
Since the rank holders were number advised by the PSC, the candidates including the appellants filed O.P. No.
Among the 28 candidates advised on the basis of the order issued by the High Court, one number joining duty vacancy arose.
Pursuant to the said numberification, the appellants herein applied for the said post.
In view of the same, the Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission by a letter dated 09.11.1995, informed the Government for discharging the candidates advised on 04.01.1993 and 03.03.1993.
The particulars furnished show that from the list 40 candidates were advised on 09.08.1990 and out of which 6 candidates did number join and hence 6 other candidates were advised on 05.03.1991.
5818 of 2002 and O.P. No.
It is also number in dispute that the High Court ultimately dismissed O.P. No.
The Kerala State Public Service Commission invited applications for the direct recruitment of Reserve Sub Inspectors vide Notification dated 24.09.1985 and the rank list came into force with effect from 05.06.1990.
Thereafter, the High Court issued an order on 27.11.1992 in the same petition to advise 28 persons including the appellants from rank list to 28 vacancies reported to the PSC.
On the basis of the interim order, instead of reporting 58 vacancies only 20 vacancies were reported to the PSC and they were advised on 26.02.1992.
Against the dismissal of the writ appeals, Mr. A.A. Jolly filed Review Petition Nos.1163, 1164 and 1165 of 2006 before the High Court.
2062 of 1991 and other companynected petitions were dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated 20.07.1995 relying on the judgment in O.P. No.
in the District Armed Reserve.
2062 of 1991 and other related petitions on 20.07.1995.
The 3rd respondent, who is to be placed below the appellants and who was, in fact, promoted as Sub Inspector long after the advise of the appellants as Sub Inspectors is placed above them violating the 5050 ratio for direct recruitment and promotion.
On 09.08.1990, after the rank list came into force, only 40 persons from that list were advised for appointment since only 40 vacancies were reported to the PSC at that time.
Some of the promotees filed O.P. No.
The appellants are the Sub Inspectors of Police in the District Armed Reserve.
3685 of 1991 in O.P. No.
2062 of 1991, the vacancies legitimately available to direct recruits were number reported to the PSC, another petition being C.M.P. No.
2189, 2190 and 2191 of 2002 and O.P. Nos.
They are number working as Reserve Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve.
The appellants also sought a writ of mandamus declaring that they were entitled to be assigned in the seniority list of Sub Inspectors strictly working out the ratio of 5050 for direct recruits and promotees as prescribed in the said Government Order.
4352, 9024 and 2062 of 1991 which were disposed of by the High Court by its judgment dated 20.07.1995 filed Writ Appeal Nos.
31240 of 2001 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.
After the advise of the appellants, by order dated 26.12.1995, a provisional seniority list of reserved Sub Inspectors, as on 01.01.1991, was published by the Inspector General of Police Admn.
5818 of 2002 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.
8188 of 1990, the Government had stated that there were 207 posts and only 11 posts were occupied by directly recruited Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve.
Accordingly, the Kerala State Public Service Commission advised 28 candidates on 04.01.1993 and one candidate on 03.03.1993 against one among the 28 who did number join.
One of the appellants, namely, Mr. A.A. Jolly, who was number a party in O.P. Nos.
There were 207 sanctioned posts of reserved Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve and 50 has to be given to direct recruits and only after giving appointment to them, promotees companyld put forward any claim which was made clear by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram to the Deputy Inspector General, Northern Range, Calicut, by companymunication dated 14.01.1992.
P 9, interim order passed by the High Court, the advice given to them has to be treated as regular.
In the meantime, 11 candidates in the rank list filed O.P. No.
1163, 1164 and 1165 of 2006 dated 07.02.2007 whereby the High Court dismissed all the petitions filed by the appellants herein.
As per G.O. MS No.
By a companymon order dated 07.02.2007, the High Court dismissed all the review petitions holding that even if there is a wrong finding, the remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal.
These appeals are directed against the companymon final judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No.
The third respondent herein, namely, Mr. P.B. Suresh Kumar, was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector by direct recruitment in 1989.
At the time, when the said rank list came into force, except special recruits, numberone was appointed by direct recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector in the District Armed Reserve as prescribed in the numberification dated 24.09.1985 issued by the PSC.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Subsequently, 20 candidates were advised on 26.02.1992.
2062 of 1991 and similar other petitions before the High Court for directing the authority to report the vacancies and also to direct the PSC to advice for the vacancies available in the direct recruitment quota.
He companytinued as Assistant Sub Inspector till 1995 and was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police only in 1995.
3596 of 1999, 31240 of 2001 and 5818 of 2002.
45, 47, 49, 51, 59, 61 and 67 respectively.
The remaining 196 posts were occupied by the promotees from the feeder category.
3685 of 1991 in O.P. No.
Similarly, a number of promotees were also placed above the appellants violating the service rules.
Out of the said posts, 11 posts were occupied by persons appointed under Rule 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 hereinafter referred to as KS SSR from among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
On 30.05.1991, the High Court passed an interim order in CMP No.
2062 of 1991 before the High Court and the High Court by order dated 29.06.1992 directed the Director General of Police to report 28 vacancies to the PSC and issued another interim order on 27.11.1992 to the PSC to advise candidates for the 28 vacancies.
171/74/Home dated 18.11.1974, 50 of the posts of Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve Reserve Sub Inspectors will have to be filled up by direct recruitment.
By a companymon order dated 29.08.2006, the High Court disposed of Writ Appeal Nos.
Since on the basis of the interim order dated 30.05.1991, passed by the High Court in C.M.P. No.
However, O.P. No.
It is further seen that in the companymon judgment dated 29.08.2006, the High Court found that only 7 candidates against the candidates advised and appointed as per the interim orders dated 29.06.1992 and 27.11.1992 candidates advised on 04.01.1993 and 03.03.1993 are to be placed in the 50 quota for direct recruits and the remaining persons are eligible for seniority with effect from 17.06.1999, i.e., the date of the Government order.
11446 of 1992 was filed for reporting more vacancies for appointment by direct recruitment from the rank list.
1 2, namely, the State of Kerala and Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, to give seniority to direct recruits including themselves based on the advise and appointment made from Ex.
Brief facts By Government Order dated 18.11.1974, the Government of Kerala prescribed that 50 of the posts of Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve will be filled up by direct recruitment as in the case of Sub Inspectors of the Local Police.
A numberification for appointment to the post of Sub Inspectors of Police by direct recruitment in the District Armed Reserve was issued by the Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as PSC in the Gazette dated 24.09.1985.
For that vacancy, one more candidate was advised from the rank list on 03.03.1993.
31240 of 2001 dated 29.08.2006 and in R.P. Nos.
5676 of 1988.
At the same time, the appellants are shown at S.Nos.
In those circumstances, the above appeals by way of special leave petitions have been preferred by the appellants herein.
In the companynter affidavit dated 25.09.1990, filed in O.P. No.
