Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Manoj Kumar.K on 22 June, 2017
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939
OP(KAT).No. 323 of 2017
OA.NO.448/2017 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
--------------
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004.
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST - 689 645,
KERALA.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC,
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5:
1. MANOJ KUMAR.K.,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.P.K.KAMALASANAN PILLAI,
POOTHETHU LAKSHMI NIVAS, MATHOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA - 689 647, MOBILE - 9447562066.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645, KERALA.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, KERALA.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB
R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01-03-2018,ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1757 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
5/3/2018
OP(KAT).No. 323 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.448 OF 2017 WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.448 OF 2017 DATED
22/06/2017
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.4178 OF 2017.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
5/3/2018
CR
P.R.Ramachandra Menon &
Devan Ramachandran, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT)Nos.323, 326, 327, 332, 335,
336, 352, 367, 385, 389 & 403 of 2017
& W.A.Nos.1757, 1865, 1928, 2255 &
2369 of 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The inexorable desire, unceasing hope and hortative expectation of aspirants to various posts in public services under the Government of Kerala is the soul of all these proceedings.
2. We are herein dealing jointly with five writ appeals impugning the judgments of a learned Single Judge of this Court and eleven other original petitions impugning the orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for brevity). All the writ appeals and original petitions have been filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), save W.A.No.1865/2017, which has been filed by the writ OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 2 petitioners in W.P.(C)No.18673/2017. Since the foundations of all the assertions and averments in these appeals and original petitions are analogous, if not identical, to each other, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all these matters taken together by this judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, we treat W.A.No.1757/2017 as the lead case and unless otherwise specified, all references to the parties and documents in this judgment will be as arrayed and shown in the said writ appeal.
3. The common cause shown by the various party respondents in the appeals and original petitions and the appellants in W.A.No.1865/2017, who will hereafter be referred collectively as petitioners/applicants for convenience, is against the alleged selective extension of the rank lists prepared by the PSC, to the various posts in various services in Government of Kerala, through its order, which was called into question by them before the learned Single Judge and the learned Tribunal, while denying such benefits to the rank lists in which they are included. The rank lists in which the various petitioners/applicants are included, all came into effect some OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 3 time in the year 2013 and were all normally to expire in the year 2016. We notice that except in three cases, namely O.P. (CAT)Nos.335/2017, 367/2017 and 403/2017, the rank lists expired after June 2016. As regards the rank lists in aforementioned three original petitions are concerned, it expired prior to June 2016, but admittedly were extended by the PSC for a further period of six months thereafter. In effect, therefore, all the rank lists involved in these cases, save an exception in the case of W.A.No.1865/2017, to which we will advert later, expired some time during the period from 01.06.2016 to 30.12.2016.
4. While the rank lists were thus poised, the Government made a recommendation to the PSC on 23.06.2016, requesting them to consider extension of all rank lists which were in force as on 30.06.2016 and which were stated to expire on 30.12.2016, for a further period of six months. This recommendation has not been placed on record in any of these matters, but we see that the request of the Government, based on such recommendation, was accepted by the PSC and that an order bearing No.AV(2)4182/02/GW dated OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 4 29.06.2016, a copy of which has been appended to the writ petition as Exhibit P16, was issued extending all such rank lists for a further period up to 31.12.2016. The said order made it very clear that such extension would apply to all the rank lists, provided they did not exceed a total period of 4B= years from the date on which they were brought into effect. We are told by the learned counsel for the parties that this order took effect and that all the rank lists, in fact, enjoyed the benefit under the said order.
5. Subsequently, as the pleadings and materials on record would show, the Government made another recommendation dated 2912.2016, a copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit P17, requesting the PSC to consider extending the validity of all rank lists which were then current and the period of which had not been extended until then and were to expire on or before 31.03.2017, for a period up to 30.06.2017. We notice, from the pleadings that this recommendation was also accepted by the PSC and by an order bearing No.AV(2) 4182/02/GW dated 30.12.2016, a copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit P18, the PSC OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 5 decided and thus resolved 'to keep alive the rank lists which are due to expire on the completion of the period of three years as on 31.12.2016 for a period of six months, i.e. up to 30.06.2017'. It was also decided by them that ' this extension will apply to all the ranked lists which are due to expire during the period from 31.12.106 to 29.06.2017, subject to the following conditions:
1. This extension will not be applicable to those ranked lists whose validity period have already been extended by virtue of the notification No.AV(2)4182/02/GW dated 29 th June 2016 and expire on 31.12.2016.
2. The ranked list shall cease to be in force on the date on which a fresh ranked list for the same post is brought into force.
3. This shall not be applicable in respect of ranked lists for posts which involve training in the uniformed forces and ranked lists of candidates for admission to Training-Course that lead to automatic appointment to services or posts.'
6. A reading of Exhibit P18 and the afore-extracted portions of the decision of the PSC makes it obvious that the OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 6 intention of the PSC was to grant extension to those rank lists which did not obtain the benefit of an extension earlier and which would have normally expired between the period from
31.12.2016 to 29.06.2017 only. This is explicit from the conditions attached to Exhibit P18, wherein it is specifically provided that the extension will not be applicable to those rank lists whose 'validity period' had already been extended by virtue of Exhibit P16 order aforementioned.
7. The various writ petitioners/applicants, who are the respondents in the appeals and the original petitions filed by the PSC and the appellants in W.A.No.1865/2017, assailed this condition of Exhibit P18 as being illegal, unlawful and in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the challenge against the conditions imposed in Exhibit P18 and found that the PSC had not acted in adherence to the powers vested with it under the proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and quashed the impugned condition therein, thereby facilitating extension OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 7 of the period of life of even those rank lists which had the benefit of an extension earlier until 30.06.2017. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was, thereafter, followed in other writ petitions as well as in several original applications filed before the learned Tribunal and the PSC has come up in appeal against all such judgments and orders in the above appeals and original petitions, while the petitioners in some of the writ petitions have filed W.A.No.1865/2017, being unsatisfied, since extension of the rank list, in which they were included, was granted by the learned Single Judge only for three more months.
9. We have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission, Sri.Saju John, Sri.P.Nandakumar, Sri.M.K.Thankappan, Sri.P.Benjamin Paul, Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay and Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for various party respondents in the appeals and the original petitions and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents in all the above cases.
OP(KAT) 323/17 & con. cases 8
10. The fundamental issue involved in these cases is as to the powers of the PSC in extending a rank list. This power is couched in Rule 13 of the Rules and in particular, proviso 5 thereto. Since the consideration of this Court on this focal issue will involve an interpretation to the provisions contained in this proviso, we deem it appropriate to extract the same as under:
b