Judgment:
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The appellant is the writ petitioner. She was a candidate included in the rank list prepared by the PSC for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer. But the KSEB decided to abolish certain posts of Sub Engineers as part of economy measure. Therefore, there were no vacancies to accommodate the candidates included in the ranked list. The persons included in the rank list like the appellant, approached this Court. This Court issued a direction to appoint the petitioners therein who might have got appointment, but for the abolition of the posts, notionally to the service of the KSEB and also to retrench them immediately. The said direction was issued by this Court to enable the appellant and others to get appointment under the KSEB, whenever direct recruitment is made from the open market. In obedience to that direction, the appellant and others were appointed and retrenched, by Ext.P1 order. Now there are a few vacancies in the KSEB in the post of Sub Engineer. So the appellant, claiming one of those vacancies, filed this writ petition. But the KSEB resisted the prayer of the petitioner/appellant, contending that she has a claim only to get appointment when recruitment is made from the open market. Only 30% of the vacancies in the cadre of Sub Engineer are reserved to be filled up from the open market. At present, there are excess direct recruits, having regard to the cadre strength. According to them, only 142 posts are available for direct recruitment, but 320 direct recruits are working. Therefore, the claim of the appellant was untenable, it was submitted. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the KSEB and overruled the contention of the appellant that irrespective of the quota, whenever a vacancy arises, she being a retrenched hand, should be accommodated. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, this writ appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned Counsel Sri. Alexander Joseph for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB. The point to be decided is whether the appellant, as a retrenched employee, can claim appointment to any vacancy arising in the cadre of Sub Engineer. In this case, we notice that the appellant, as a candidate included in the rank list, had claim only to the vacancies available in the direct recruitment quota. Since several posts were abolished, the appellant could not have been appointed. So, to safeguard the interest of the appellant and others, this Court thought, they should be considered in future vacancies arising in that quota. They can be considered if only they are advised, appointed and thereafter retrenched. Otherwise, once the PSC list expires, they will not have any claim for appointment. To get over this legal hurdle, and having regard to the special facts of this case, certain directions were issued by this Court and on the strength of those directions, Ext.P1 appointment order was issued. The retrenchment under Ext.P1 cannot be treated as a normal retrenchment of an employee who was working for some time and thereafter, owing to absence of vacancy, the incumbent was retrenched. In view of the above position, we agree with the stand of the KSEB and also with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.