Kerala High Court
The Kerala Public Service Commission vs Baiju S on 30 July, 2014
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938
OP(KAT).No. 1 of 2015 (Z)
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 777/2014 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-07-2014
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.4:
-----------------------------
THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695004.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND RESPONDENTS NO.1-3:
----------------------------------------------
1. BAIJU S, S/O.YESUDAS, AGED 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MANNADIKONAM,
AMBALATHUVILA VEEDU,OORUTTAMBALAM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695507.
2. BIJU.B.B,S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT VATTAPPULLU
THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,VAVODU,VAZHICHAL.P.O,
THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,KOOTTAPPARA,KARAKULAM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695125.
3. BINU.T,S/O.THANKAPPAN,AGED 30 YEARS,RESIDING AT VILIYAVILAS
ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,AMBALATHINKALA,AMBALATHINKALA.P.O,
KATTAKKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572.
4. ANOOJ.A.C, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN NAIR.C,AGED 30 YRS.,
RESIDING AT PUNARTHAM,T.C.6/1021(3),PADAYANI ROAD,
VATTIYOORKAVU,VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.
5. HARIKUMAR.S, S/O.SADASIVAN NAIR,AGED 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PANACHAKKONATHU VEEDU,
SANKARAMUKHAM,VELLANADU.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695543.
6. ABHILASH.S.S, S/O.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,AGED 31 YEARS,
V.S.BHAVAN,ARAYOOR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695122.
7. BAIJU S., S/O.K.BABU,AGED 27 YRS.,
RESIDING AT THOPPIL CHARUVILA AATTARKIATHU VEEDU,
KOOTTAPPARA,KARAKULAM,KARAKULAM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695564.
8. SAIJU.S, S/O.SYRES, AGED 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNDATHATTAM PUTHEN VEEDU,
PARASUVAYKKAL,PARASSALA, PARASSUVAYKKAL PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695508.
OP(KAT).No. 1 of 2015 (Z)
9. ARUN.A.O, S/O.APPU NADAR,AGED 30 YEARS, A.O.COTTAGE,
PEYATTUKUZHI,NEYYATTINKARA.P.O,THRIUVANANTHAPURAM-695120.
10. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
P & AR DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,GPO,STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
11. COMMANDANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT GENERAL,
FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES,CHENKALCHOOLA,GPO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
12. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA FIRE AND RESCUE
SERVICES ACADEMY,RAMAVARMAPURAM,RAMAVARMAPURAM.P.O,
THRISSUR-680631.
SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R2 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BALAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
R2 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
R5,R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON 08-04-2016 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RTR
OP(KAT).No. 1 of 2015 (Z) ..1..
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.777 OF 2014 WITH ANNEXURES
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.777 OF 2014 DATED 30/07/2014
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN UNNUMBERED R.A.NO.....OF 2014 IN
O.A.777 OF 2014 DATED 30/09/2014.
1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
-------------------------
EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL
WEBSITE OF THE PSC
EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE LETTER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,
2005 BY ONE SRI.SAJAN S.P., THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF
THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4-9089/2014 DATED 4.7.14 OF THE
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AV(2)4182/2002/GW DATED 18.10.2014
OF THE SECRETARY, KPSC ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
-------------------------
EXT.R4(A): COPY OF APPLICATION DT.3.4.14 SUBMITTED BY ADV.JIJITH S.L.
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, FIRE FORCE HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R4(B): COPY OF REPLY DATED 16.4.14 SENT BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER TO SHRI. JIJITH S.L.
EXT.R4(C): COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEB SITE OF
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
EXT.R4(D): COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 6.6.2014 SENT BY SRI.RAKESH
BEFORE the SATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
EXT.R4(E): COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE 11TH
RESPONDENT TO SRI.RAKESH S.
EXT.R4(F): COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.2.2014 ISSUED BY 11TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PSC
EXT.R4(G): COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2008 IN WA NO.282/2008 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXT.R4(H): COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 23.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
EXT.R4(I): COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 28.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OP(KAT).No. 1 of 2015 (Z) ..2..
EXT.R4(J): COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 1.7.2014 FILED UNDER the RIGHT
TO INFORMATION ACT BY SRI.SAJAN S.P. BEFORE 11TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(K): COPY OF REPLY DATED 4.7.2014ISSUED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT
TO SRI.SAJAN S.P.
6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
-------------------------
EXT.R6(A): COPY OF THE REQUEST AND THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE FIRE &
RESCUE SERVICES DATED 16.4.2014
EXT.R6(B): COPY OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER GIVEN BY THE KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 30.4.2014
EXT.R6(C): COPY OF THE REQUEST AND REPLY FROM THE FIRE & RESCUE
SERVICES DATED 11.6.2014 INCLUDING THEIR ENCLOSURE
RTR
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V ASHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2016
JUDGMENT
Asha, J.
The Kerala Public Service Commission (`PSC' for short), has filed this O.P. (KAT) against the direction of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal' for short) in Ext P2 order in O.A. No.770 of 2014, to advise candidates against the 47 vacancies of Firemen Driver cum Plumber in the Department of Fire and Rescue Services, which were already reported and pending before it. The Original Application (`O.A' for short) was disposed of on the basis of the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the PSC that, the ranked list continued to be in force at the relevant time. In this Original Petition, the PSC submits that it was on account of a mistake that such an erroneous submission happened to be made by the PSC and that the ranked list was cancelled on 3.12.2013. Pointing out the said mistake, O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 2 the PSC had filed a Review Application which was dismissed by Ext.P3 order dated 30.09.2014, on the ground that the said Review Application was filed beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. Though no grounds are urged in this Original Petition, as to the computation of the 30 days, the learned Counsel argued that period, during which the Tribunal was not sitting on account of vacation, was liable to be excluded for calculating the 30 days period. It was contended that the Review Application could not be filed when the Tribunal was not sitting during vacation and since the same was filed on the re-opening day itself, the Tribunal ought to have found it as one filed within time. We are unable to agree with the said proposition, in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Administrative Rules of Practice. We agree with the view adopted by the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order.
2. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the matter requires reconsideration and sought for a remand of the matter back to the Tribunal. But we find that when this O.P(KAT) came up for consideration before another Bench of this court on 9.4.2015, the following order was passed:
O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 3
"Though it would have been appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the order in the review petition, still having regard to the fact that it will only cause further delay in the finalisation of the proceedings, we feel it only appropriate that the PSC should answer the factual issues raised in the counter affidavits filed by the party respondents so that the issue centered around the first proviso to Rule 13 of the PSC Rules of Procedure, which will determine the life of the rank list in question, can be finally decided. The PSC will file affidavit in this regard. The case will be called in the second week of June, 2015.
Interim order is extended till the next posting date."
In the light of the above order passed on 9.4.2015, PSC filed an affidavit; party respondents filed additional counter affidavits in reply to it; thereafter PSC filed an additional affidavit, pursuant to a direction of this court. The main contention of the PSC is that the ranked list was cancelled on 3.12.2013 and there cannot be any further advice from a list not in existence. Further contention is that operation of the ranked list in question is governed by the 1st proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules ').
3. The O.A was filed by candidates included in Annexure- A2 rank list for appointment to the post of Fireman Driver cum Pump Operators in the Fire and Rescue Services, by direct recruitment. The ranked list came into force w.e.f 9.8.2012. The O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 4 O.A was filed in April, 2014 for a declaration that the ranked list Annexure-A2 would be valid for a period of 4= years or till the date of publication of a new ranked list whichever is earlier and that the PSC is bound to advise the candidates from Annexure-A2 ranked list till such date and for consequential directions. In the O.A, the applicants had pointed out the details of advices made from Annexure-A2 rank list during the period from 29.10.2012 to 24.02.2014.
4. When the O.A came up for consideration, on 30.7.2014, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC made a submission that the ranked list for the post of Fireman Driver cum Pump Operator continued to be in force. As it was pointed out that 47 vacancies in the post already reported were pending advice, before the PSC, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A directing the PSC to advise candidates as against those vacancies.
5. In Annexure-A1 notification, based on which Annexure-A2 ranked list was published, it was notified as follows:
"The ranked list of candidates finalised in pursuance of this notification shall cease to be in force after one year from O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 5 the date of finalisation of the ranked list or after one month from the date of commencement of the training in respect of the last batch of candidates advised from the ranked list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of ranked list, whichever is later. Candidates will be advised from the said list against the vacancies noted above and that may be reported to the Commission during the period of currency of the list."
The number of vacancies notified in Annexure-A1 was 81.
6. As per Rule 13 of the KPSC Rules of Procedure, the normal validity period of a ranked list published by the PSC is till the publication of a new rank list after the expiry of minimum period of one year from the date from which it is brought into force or till the expiry of 3 years, whichever is earlier. Under the first proviso to Rule 13, which provides for an exception to this normal rule, the rank list of candidates for admission to a training course that leads to automatic appointment to services or posts will cease to be in force after one year from the date of finalisation of rank list or after one month from the date of commencement of the training in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the rank list whichever is later.
7. As per Rule 14, the Commission shall advise candidates against all vacancies reported and pending before O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 6 them and vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the rank lists are kept alive in the order of priority if any and in the order of merit. In this Original Petition, the PSC furnished the details of candidates advised on various dates as follows:
29.10.2012 - 213 12.12.2012 - 26 06.06.2013 - 11 03.07.2013 - 9 24.09.2013 - 2 20.11.2013 - 1 20.12.2013 - 2.
According to the PSC, the one year period from finalisation of ranked list expired on 08.08. 2013. The training for the last batch of candidates, who were advised on 3.7.2013, commenced on 4.11.2013. Therefore, it is the contention of the PSC that the rank list expired on 3.12.2013 on expiry of one month from the date of commencement of their training and the ranked list was cancelled on 3.12.2013 and therefore no further advice could be O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 7 made from the list. According to the PSC, advice was made against all the vacancies reported on or before 3.12.2013 including anticipated vacancies.
8. The party respondents, who are candidates included in Annexure-A2 rank list, have filed counter affidavits furnishing the details of the advices made and the details they have collected under the Right to Information Act. Ext.R4(c) produced by the 4th respondent is the copy of appointment chart collected from the official website of the PSC. This appointment chart relates to appointment of 58 candidates advised on 24.02.2014. The number of vacancies reported was 58 and the date of receipt of vacancies was shown as 3.12.2013. It is the case of all the party respondents that the date of receipt of vacancies given in the appointment chart as 3.12.2013 was not correct. On the basis of the details collected from the office of the Commandant General, Fire and Rescue Services, who is the appointing authority, it was stated in their counter affidavits that those 58 vacancies were reported on 8.4.2009 and the advices were made on the basis of a reminder Ext.R4(f) dated 13.02.2014, sent by the Commandant General to the PSC requesting to advise O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 8 candidates against the 58 vacancies reported from that office as per letter No.A2-2716/09 dated 08.04.2009. These 58 candidates advised from Annexure-A2 rank list commenced their training on 25.06.2014. Therefore, according to the candidates, the ranked list expired only on 24.07.2014 on the expiry of one month from the date of commencement of the training in respect of the last batch advised from the rank list. It was therefore contended that, when the 47 vacancies, mentioned in the order of the Tribunal, were reported on 19.6. 2014, the ranked list was in force and therefore the PSC ought to have advised candidates against those 47 vacancies from Annexure-A2 rank list, as directed by the Tribunal. The ranked list can be said to have expired only on 24.07.2014, going by the first proviso to Rule 13.
9. The PSC filed an affidavit, pursuant to the direction of this Court on 9.6.2015. In this affidavit also, they stated that the ranked list expired on 3.12.2013 in accordance with the proviso to Rule 13. The candidates filed counter affidavits/additional counter affidavits refuting the contentions of the PSC. On direction from this Court, PSC filed an additional O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 9 affidavit on 10.08.2015, stating that the 58 vacancies, against which candidates from Ann A2 ranked list were advised and commenced training on 25.6.2014, were reported as per letter dated 8.4.2009; those vacancies were honoured by the Commission, as the proforma reporting those vacancies happened to be misplaced. Therefore, the Commission took a conscious decision to honour the requisition treating those vacancies as reported before the publication of the rank list and advised those candidates on 24.2.2014. It was further stated that, the advice of those candidates on 24.2.2014 was made in peculiar circumstances and that will not in any way give an extension to the validity period of the rank list. It is the contention of the PSC that in order to honour the vacancies reported before the expiry of one month of the commencement of training of the last batch advised/selected from the ranked list, the advice of candidates should have been within one year of the date on which the rank list came into force and the vacancies should have been those reported during that period i.e within one month of the commencement of the training of candidates selected from the rank list within one year of finalisation of rank O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 10 list. The advices should have been made against the vacancies reported within one year of the finalisation of ranked list. Moreover the ranked list in this case was cancelled on 3.12.2013.
10. According to the respondents the issue arising in this case is covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A. 282 of 2008 and no interference is required with the order of the Tribunal.
11. We heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, Senior Advocate Sri. Jaju Babu, M/S S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, Elvin Peter and S.Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents and Sri. Mohamed Shaffi, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondent.
12. From the details furnished by the respondents/candidates, who are the party respondents herein and from the averments in the additional affidavit of PSC, it is seen that, 58 vacancies were reported to PSC on 8.4.2009. The date of advice of those 58 candidates from Annexure-A2 ranked list is 24.2.2014. The date of commencement of their training is O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 11 on 25.6.2014. It is the contention of the PSC that in order to make any advice for training, the advice of candidates who are undergoing training should be within one year of the finalisation of ranked list. Further advice of candidates for training, against the 47 vacancies reported on 19.06.2014, can be made only if it is found that the ranked list was in force as on 19.06.2014. Therefore we will examine the provisions contained in Rule 13, its first proviso and Rule 14 of the Rules. Rule 13 along with the 1st proviso thereof reads as follows:
"13. The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier:
Provided that the above rule shall not apply in respect of ranked lists of candidates for admission to Training Course that leads to automatic appointment to services of posts and that in such cases the ranked list shall cease to be in force after one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists or after one month from the date of commencement of the course in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists whichever is later.
xxxx"
On a perusal of the above proviso, what can be discerned is that the training of the last batch referred to therein should be of candidates selected from the list within one year of the finalisation of the list. It is to be noted that selection from the list O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 12 of candidates is for training, for which the candidates should be advised. Rule 14 of the KPSC Rules of Procedure reads as follows:
"14. The Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive in the order of priority, if any, and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable:
Provided that the advice of candidates by the Commission from the ranked lists kept alive under the fifth proviso to Rule 13, shall be confined to the vacancies that actually arose during the normal period of validity of the ranked lists under Rule 13 and certified to be as such by the appointing authorities reporting vacancies to the Public Service Commission."
13. Going by the plain meaning of the provisions contained in the 1st proviso to Rule 13, a ranked list for admission to training course which leads to appointment to the posts as in the present case shall cease to be in force after one year of its finalisation or after one month from the date of commencement of training course in respect of last batch selected from the list, within one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked list whichever is later. The one year period after finalisation of the ranked list expired on 8.8.2013.
Going by the proviso, the date of expiry of one month of commencement of the last batch of training should be with reference to the candidates advised for training before 8.8.2013. O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 13 Going by R.14, PSC shall advise candidates against all the vacancies reported and pending before it during the currency of the ranked list.
14. It is in this context we have to examine the action of the PSC in advising the 58 candidates for training on 24.2.2014, based on which they could commence training on 25.6.2014. It can be seen that their advice was after a period of about 4 months of expiry of one year after finalisation of the ranked list. Moreover, the contention of the PSC is that the ranked list was cancelled on 3.12.2013. Normally no advice is made from a ranked list, after it is cancelled. The only provision relating to validity of ranked lists as far as present case is concerned is Rule 13 and its 1st proviso of the Rules. The PSC has on their own, acted upon the ranked list finalised on 9.8.2012 and cancelled on 3.12.2013, by advising 58 candidates from that ranked list on 24.2.2014. Their training commenced on 25.6.2014. The reason stated for the advice of 58 candidates on 24.2.2014 after the alleged cancellation of the ranked list is that the requisition happened to be misplaced; they advised candidates against those vacancies based on the reminder from the appointing authority. O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 14 In the appointment chart they furnished the date of receipt of requisition as 3.12.2013 in the place of 8.04.2009. It is highly unfortunate to notice that a constitutional body like the PSC has chosen to furnish a totally incorrect date against date of receipt of requisition of vacancies, in the appointment chart published in its website; thereafter suppressed this actual date while filing this O.P and furnished false details in the first affidavit filed on the direction from this court. It was only when they were compelled by this court again, that they divulged the true facts and figures. It is quite unbecoming of a responsible recruiting authority like PSC, in whom the public, especially the unemployed youth of the State repose confidence in the matter of a fair process of selection.
15. However it is seen that the ranked list that is alleged to have been cancelled on 3.12.2013 was impliedly revived after more than 2 months on 24.2.2014 to support the advise of 58 candidates, who commenced their training on 25.6.2014. PSC has treated the ranked list as valid even after one year period of its finalisation, by advising 58 candidates on 24.2.2014 for training, after more than 2 months of the alleged cancellation of O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 15 the ranked list, contrary to their own contention. That means that the requirement of advice for training within one year period from finalisation of ranked list as well as the alleged cancellation of ranked list was given a go bye, under the guise of peculiar circumstances. When such implied extension is made by PSC themselves, there is no basis for the contention that further advice cannot be made against vacancies reported before the commencement of training of those 58 candidates advised on 24.2.2014 from Annexure-A2 ranked list. 47 vacancies were reported to PSC on 19.6.2014. When the advice of those 58 candidates on 24.2.2014 is made after expiry of more than one year of finalisation of the ranked list and subsequent to the alleged cancellation of the ranked list, for whom training was commenced on 25.6.2014, PSC is bound to honour those 47 vacancies reported to it, even before the commencement of the training of the last batch from Ann A2 ranked list, as provided in Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure. There can only be a uniform procedure which PSC can adopt, for the purpose of advising candidates for training and in operating the ranked list irrespective of the mistakes or otherwise.
O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 16
16. Party respondents relied on Ext.R4(g) judgment dated 15.10.2008 of a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. 282 of 2008, in support of their contention that advice has to be made from Ann A2 ranked list, against the vacancies reported to PSC till 24.7.2014, the date of expiry of one month from the date of commencement of training of the 58 candidates. In W. A. 282 of 2008, the issue considered was with respect to the rank list published by the PSC for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (General Executive Branch) (Trainee), published on 19.8.2006; one year expired on 18.8.2007. In that case 16 candidates were advised for training on 21.8.2007. Their training commenced on 1.1.2008. PSC refused to advise any more candidates. According to them the advice of 16 candidates on 21.8.07 was after expiry of one year of the finalisation of rank list. The Division Bench held that the last batch selected from the ranked list against vacancies reported within one year of the finalisation of ranked list were sent for training only on 1.1.2008. So the ranked list will expire only on 1.2.2008. Therefore PSC was directed to advise 39 candidates more, against vacancies reported in the meanwhile.
O.P(KAT) No.1 of 2015-Z 17
17. In this case, as we have already found, PSC has advised 58 candidates from A2 list on 24.2.2014 and their training commenced on 25.7.2014. These 58 vacancies were reported and pending when the ranked list was published. In the light of Ext R4(g) judgment dated 15.10.2008 in W. A. 282 of 2008 and in the light of the fact that PSC themselves have advised and sent for training 58 candidates, much after the alleged cancellation of Ann A2 ranked list, PSC is bound to honour the 47 vacancies reported to it between the date of the advice and date of commencement of the training of the last batch of 58 candidates. Hence it is necessary that advice is made against those 47 vacancies from Ann A2 ranked list.
In the above circumstances we do not find any merit in the contentions of the PSC. Therefore no interference is required with the order of KAT. The O.P(KAT) is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge rtr/ /true copy/ P.S to Judge