Kerala High Court
Rithul Mohan.T.R vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2020
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
O.P(KAT).No.341 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1299/2018 DATED 19-07-2019
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ APPLICANTS IN THE O.A.:
1 RITHUL MOHAN.T.R., AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.REMESH MOHAN.T.P.,
THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-683 516.
2 SONA BABU.S.L., AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O.V.SURENDRA BABU,
SREE KRISHNA VILASAM, KOTTIYAM P.O.,
KOLLAM-691 571.
3 JAGADEESH V.P.NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.PADMANABHAN,
VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE,
VILLIAPPALLY P.O., VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE-673 542.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAMESH
SMT.RUBEENA HILAL.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 2 -
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
3 RITHU.M.,
MALOL HOUSE, VADAKARA,
MUTTUNGAL WEST P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 106.
4 ANU.R.,
6/537, SARANGI, NEAR LPGS,
NORTH PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM-683 513.
5 DILEEP AMARNATH,
AMAR, DPO ROAD, MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM-676 505.
6 SUNISHA.E.M.,
KANNANS VILLA HOUSE,
VILLIAPPALLY P.O.,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 542.
7 PARVATHY.G.S.,
PARVATHY COTTAGE, NAVAIKULAM,
MARUTHIKUNNU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 603.
8 JEEJA JACOB,
MOOTHARIL HOUSE, ANZAR LANE,
ALUVA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-683 101.
9 SULFI.M.A.,
DILKHUSH, MULAKUZHA P.O.,
CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA-689 505.
10 REVATHY.I.V.,
REVATHY BHAVAN, T.C.64/1874(1),
PUZHAYORAM, THIRUVALLAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.
11 MAHESH.R.D.,
LAKSHMI, ARA 81, VAAKKEKARA,
AYURKONAM, PEROORKADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 3 -
12 SHABNAM.V.A.,
TRIPTHI, NEAR H.S.GOUND, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD-679 303.
13 SABIN.A., LVS BHAVAN,
KUNNUVILA, VADACODU, NEYYATTINKARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.
14 PRIMA CHANDRAN, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KUTTICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR-680 724.
R3, R5-R6 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P
R3, R5-R6 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
R3, R5-R6 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM
R4, R7-R8 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
R4, R7-R8 BY ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
R4, R7-R8 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH
R9-R14 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.SARAT.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR FOR R1.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PSC FOR R2.
THIS OP (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).356/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 4 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
OP(KAT).No.356 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 184/2018 DATED 19-07-2019
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ APPLICANT IN O.A.:
LEKHA RAJ S., AGED 38 YEARS
D/O. SARASWATHY AMMA,
STATISTICAL INVESTIGATOR GRADE-I,
TALUK STATISTICAL OFFICE, KOZHENCHERI,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689641,
RESIDING AT LEKHALAYAM, KIZHAKKEKARA,
THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAMESH
SMT.RUBEENA HILAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 PARVATHY G.S.,
PARVATHY COTTAGE, NAVAIKULAM,
MARUTHIKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695603.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 5 -
4 JEEJA JACOB, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. BIJU M.P.,
JUNIOR GEOPHYSICIST, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686001,
RESIDING AT MOOTHARIL HOUSE,
ANSAR LANE, ALUVA-683101.
5 ANU R., D/O. SRI. C. RAJAMANI, AGED 38 YEARS,
JUNIOR GEOPHYSICIST, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030,
RESIDING AT 6/537, SARANGI, NEAR LPGS,
NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683513.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR.
R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN.
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
R3-R5 BY ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).341/2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 6 -
K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.
----------------------------------------
O.P(KAT) Nos.341 of 2019 & 356 of 2019
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2020
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran,J:
The petitioners in both the Original Petitions are persons who were included in List-II of the Main List for appointment to the post of Junior Geophysicist in the Ground Water Department. The qualification required for a Junior Geophysicist, as prescribed in the notification, was a Masters Degree in Geophysics with not less than 50% marks. In the absence of candidates with the above qualification, Masters Degree in any branch of Physics with not less than 50% marks could also be considered. It is hence there were two main lists, one with candidates of the required qualification and the other with candidates of the alternate qualification; the latter of whom can get appointment only on sufficient persons not being available with the required qualification. By reference to required qualification, in this judgment, we refer to the Masters qualification in Geophysics, as stipulated in the notification.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 7 -
2. In the initial short list published there were none in List I of the main list there being a total absence of candidates with Masters in Geophysics. Later to that before the interview there was a publication of a separate List-I with candidates included there. The petitioners challenged the same on coming to know that the persons included in List-I were persons alleged to have equivalent qualification of Masters Degree in Geophysics ie: in Marine Geophysics. There was no stipulation in the notification for consideration of such equivalent qualification and there could be no change made by the recruiting agency after the selection process has commenced, was the specific contention.
3. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the recruiting agency, the Kerala Public Service Commission ['PSC' for brevity] that equivalence was one mandated by Annexure A5 judgment. It was found that there was also a Circular issued by the PSC, marked as Annexure R4(m) dated 11.07.2003, which mandated that "applications of candidates who possess qualification equivalent to the prescribed ones declared as equivalent by executive orders or standing orders will be admitted irrespective of the fact whether acceptance of equivalent qualification is provided for in OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 8 -
the notification or not". The Tribunal found that Annexure A5 judgment is binding on the PSC and that the failure to mention M.Sc Marine Geophysics as one equivalent to M.Sc. Geophysics in Annexure A1 would not vitiate the selection. The decision in K.P.S.C. v. V.V.Vivina & Ors. [2009 (2) KLT 161] relied on by the petitioners was also found to have no application in the teeth of Annexure R4(m) Circular.
4. Sri.S.Ramesh, learned Counsel arguing for the petitioners pointed out that there was none included in List-I as it was originally published. Only later, an inclusion was made of the respondents in List-I, who were qualified as per the notification. The decision to treat Masters Degree in Marine Geophysics as an equivalent qualification was taken by the PSC after the selection was completed and shortlist for interview was published. There could be no equivalence claimed when there was no such prescription in the notification. Candidates who had Masters Degree in Marine Geophysics could only be included in List-II of the main list, since they did not have the required qualification in Geophysics and they could be considered as having only alternative qualification of Masters Degree in any branch of Physics.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 9 -
5. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for some of the respondents, took us through the notification issued in the Kerala Gazette, produced as Annexure R4(k) in O.A.No.1299 of 2018, specifically to paragraph 19, to contend that there could be a consideration of equivalent qualification if the University endorses such qualification. Specific reference is made to R4(f) by which the Cochin University of Science and Technology [CUSAT] has endorsed the course M.Sc Marine Geophysics carried on by them to be equivalent to M.Sc Geophysics offered by Osmania University, Hyderabad. It is also argued that there was no explanation for the delay that was occasioned before the Tribunal. Relying on Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it was contended that the Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction when the list published on 01.12.2016 which has force with effect from 24.11.2016 [Annexure A2] was challenged in the year 2018. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Secretary to Govt. of India v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad [1995 Supp (3) SCC 231] to contend that here there was no application for condonation of delay and even otherwise there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The decisions in Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 10 -
[(1999) 8 SCC 304] and D.C.S.Negi v. Union of India [(2018) 16 SCC 721] are also relied on to put forth the contention of delay and laches especially on the jurisdiction invoked of the Tribunal under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
6. Annexure A1 is the notification issued for the post of Junior Geophysicist. The qualification prescribed is Masters Degree in Geophysics with not less than 50% marks and in the absence of candidates with the said qualification, Masters Degree in any branch of Physics with not less than 50% marks. There is one another alternate requirement to be employed in the absence of candidates with both the above qualifications, where relaxation is given with respect to marks, which we need not look at to decide the issue arising herein. Admittedly the persons who later figured in the main lists are persons having qualification in Marine Geophysics, but there is no prescription of equivalent qualification as seen from Annexure A1. Paragraph 19 of Annexure R4(k), according to the respondents, enable the PSC to treat equivalent qualifications on there being a certification from a University.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 11 -
7. Paragraph 19 reads as under:
"19. Qualifications prescribed including experience for a post shall be one acquired by the candidate on or before the last date fixed for receipt of applications for that particular post. The date for determining whether a candidate does possesses a particular qualification including experience shall be the last date fixed for receipt of application. Candidates possessing qualifications equivalent to those prescribed for a post shall produce in addition to the documents referred to in para 15(b), sufficient proof obtained from a University or any other competent authority to the effect that the qualifications possessed by him are recognized as equivalent to those prescribed for the post.
xxx xxx xxx"
This can only be taken as a prescription to consider the equivalent qualifications when the notification itself provides for consideration of equivalent qualifications. The notification as we saw, only speaks of M.Sc in Geophysics and in the alternative, M.Sc in any branch of Physics. We also do not think that the certificate relied on by the respondents from the CUSAT could be considered for treating the qualification of M.Sc in Marine Geophysics to be equivalent to M.Sc in Geophysics. When equivalency is certified, the University which offers the required course has to certify that the different qualification awarded by OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 12 -
another University is equivalent to that of the required qualification. Admittedly CUSAT does not offer a Masters Degree in Geophysics. The CUSAT has, by the certificate, certified that the course they offer is equivalent to M.Sc Geophysics offered by the Osmania University. M.Sc Geophysics being the required qualification, for any other qualification to be treated as equivalent the certificate should be from the University which offers the required qualification.
8. The Tribunal in the impugned order had relied on Annexure A5 judgment of this Court as also Annexure R4(m) Circular issued by the PSC. Annexure A5 judgment was by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the year 2005, delivered on 26.04.2005. The specific direction in the judgment was to treat Masters Degree in Marine Geophysics obtained from CUSAT as equivalent to Masters Degree in Geophysics. At the outset we notice that despite the binding judgment, the PSC did not find it convenient to include M.Sc Marine Geophysics as an equivalent qualification in the notification. It admittedly considered the qualification as equivalent only at the stage when a shortlist for interview was drawn up. In this context we look at Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [(2019) 8 SCC 587].
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 13 -
The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that when a candidate with a qualification which was not depicted in the recruitment notification is appointed, it would stand to the disadvantage of other persons who had possessed the same qualification. In that case, the qualification prescribed was inter alia a degree in B.Sc (Agro-Forestry), which specific course was not being imparted in the country. The service regulations of the Bank to which the appointment was made, required Agricultural Officers who have the qualification of "degree in Agriculture and/or allied subjects". The information furnished by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research [ICAR] included 'Forestry' in the definition of 'Agriculture'. It was also an admitted fact that in the subsequent notification for selection, B.Sc (Forestry) was an admissible qualification. The High Court on that basis opined that B.Sc (Forestry) could be treated as equivalent to B.Sc (Agro-Forestry). The Supreme Court reversed the said finding specifically holding that it is not for the Court to provide equivalence relating to educational qualifications relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Sobrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University [(2009) 4 SCC 555].
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 14 -
9. In this case what is relied on is the
declaration in Annexure A5 that M.Sc in Marine Geophysics would be treated as equivalent to M.Sc in Geophysics. There was no prescription in the notification to accept that as the required qualification or even a simple prescription that equivalent qualifications to that of M.Sc Geophysics would be considered. A Masters Degree in Marine Geophysics, as per the notification could only be considered if there are no candidates with M.Sc in Geophysics. On the facts coming out in the above case, then the candidates with Masters Degree in Marine Geophysics could only be considered for inclusion along with the candidates having Masters Degree in other branches of Physics. The candidates thus appearing in List-I could only have been included in List-II of the main list.
10. We are also not convinced that Annexure R4(m) could operate effectively, in the teeth of the declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aarya K.Babu. The notification should clearly provide that equivalent qualifications would also be considered, failing which those possessing equivalent qualifications may not apply, thus prejudicing them as has been pointed out in Aarya K.Babu. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 15 -
Tribunal on merits has to be interfered with. However, the question arises of the delay and whether the Tribunal could have entertained the application at all.
11. It was vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the party respondents that there was no challenge in accordance with Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act as not even an application for condonation of delay was filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, would submit that there is a convincing cogent explanation for the delay occasioned. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad to contend that without an application for condonation of delay the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the Original Application. We specifically notice what has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"No such application was in fact made. Even if it was the contention of the employee that he was suffering from schizophrenia, that could have been projected as a ground for condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the said statute. Even otherwise without insisting on the formality of an application under Section 21(3) if the Tribunal had dealt with the question of limitation in the context of Section 21 we may have refrained from interfering with the order of OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 16 -
the Tribunal under Article 136, but it seems that the Tribunal totally overlooked this question which clearly stared in the face. Even the employee made no effort to explain the delay and seek condonation".
(underlining by us for emphasis) The Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing that no application was filed for delay condonation, went on to state that even otherwise if the Tribunal had considered the question in the context of Section 21, there would not have been any cause for interference. In the present case admittedly, the respondents raised the question of delay before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, recorded the plea, but seems to have not considered it, since on merits the Original Application was rejected.
12. We would first deal with some other precedents cited at the Bar. Ramesh Chand Sharma was a case in which O.A. was filed before the Tribunal after expiry of three years from the order of promotion and the applicant did not file any application of condonation of delay despite an objection raised by the respondents. There were very many reasons projected for the delay occasioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the explanation sought to be given OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 17 -
before the Supreme Court "cannot be entertained as no foundation thereof was laid before the Tribunal" (sic)(para
7). It was held that when it was open to an applicant to file an application for delay condonation before the Tribunal, he cannot be permitted to urge such contention at a later stage; having not taken it up before the Tribunal.
13. D.C.S.Negi again stressed upon the need to have strict compliance with Sections 19 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. We specifically refer to paragraph 13, which we extract here under:
"13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses
(a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3)".
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 18 -
14. The delay urged is insofar as the rank list having been published on 01.12.2016 [having effect from 24.11.2016] including the respondents in List-I of the Main List, while the O.A was filed on 05.02.2018. The petitioners submit that they have a valid explanation insofar as they never were made aware of the how the new list was drawn up. It is also contended that they did not know the specific marks of the persons included in List-I, especially when later it was revealed that persons with lesser marks were ranked in List-II. It is in this context that an application was made at Annexure A3 on 15.10.2017;
which was replied by the PSC through Annexure A4. Then the petitioners came to know that List-I was drawn up with cut off marks of 7.33, while List-II was drawn up with cut off marks of 13.33. Only then the petitioners could file the Original Application, is the contention.
15. To consider the question of delay, we necessarily have to consider the contention of the PSC also. It is pointed out that Annexure A2 rank list was published on 01.12.2016, which was brought into force with effect from 24.11.2016 and it contained the marks of all the persons. Looking at Annexure A2, we find that the marks OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 19 -
obtained by all the persons ranked in both List-I and List-II of the Main List were very clear. In fact, rank Nos.1 to 4 in List-I had cut off marks far higher than that prescribed of 7.33 and even more than 13.33 prescribed for List-II. Only rank Nos.5 and 6 have cut off marks at 7.67 and 7.33. The total marks of serial Nos.1 to 4 also exceeded, of all those included in List II. The contention that the petitioners received valid information, only by Annexure A4 dated 16.11.2017 hence cannot be countenanced. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC that a period of 'one year' is provided for revision of list and no complaint was raised by the petitioners-applicants. The Original Applications were filed on 05.02.2018 and 13.07.2018, more than one year from the rank list published on 24.11.2016.
16. In the present case, admittedly there was delay and there was no delay condonation application filed before the Tribunal. It is also to be noticed that the respondents had raised the objection to the delay occasioned and specifically urged that it stood unexplained, which also was noted by the Tribunal in the last but one paragraph of the impugned order. Before us it is contended by the petitioners in O.P(KAT)No.341 of 2019 OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 20 -
that in fact a representation was filed on 04.12.2016. As we noticed, the rank list published was on 01.12.2016 and it can be safely assumed that the representation was made within a reasonable time on 04.12.2016. In any event, the cause of action arose on the publication of Annexure A1, which showed the specific marks of the persons in List-I; two of whom have lesser marks than the applicants who were in the Main List-II. The applicants were entitled to wait for six months to see whether the authority responds to the representation; which time expired on 03.06.2017. The Original Application filed by the person who submitted Exhibit P11 representation dated 04.12.2016 was on 13.07.2018 which he should have submitted before 02.06.2018. Though the delay is marginal, it is an admitted fact that there was no delay condonation application filed before the Tribunal, nor was the representation now produced in the Original Petition, produced before the Tribunal.
17. Insofar as O.P (KAT) No.356 of 2019 is concerned, there is no such contention of a representation having been filed. The petitioner relies on the query under the Right to Information Act, which we have found to be not sustainable. There the limitation commences from the date OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 21 -
of Annexure A2 and the applicant ought to have filed an application before the Tribunal on or before 23.11.2017. The Original Application filed by the single applicant was in February, 2018. Therein also there was no application for condonation filed, nor an explanation offered even after the objection was raised. In such circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal could have entertained the Original Application.
18. In the above context of our finding regarding delay based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we need to caution the Tribunals insofar as admitting Original Applications without verifying whether there is delay. The mere admission of such an Original Application would not lead to a presumption of the delay having been condoned, since the Administrative Tribunals Act, specifically provides for filing an application for condonation of delay. We have to notice sub-section (3) of Section 19, which speaks of an inquiry as to whether the application is fit for adjudication or trial before admitting the application and the provision also confers power on the Tribunal to summarily reject the application after recording its reasons. Section 20 speaks of no admission of applications being carried out unless the OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 22 -
other remedies are exhausted. Section 21 has the nominal heading 'Limitation' and the relevant sub-sections (1) & (3) read as follows:
Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application.-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation
such as is mentioned in clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period".
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 23 -
19. The limitation as per sub-clause (a) of
Section 21(1) is one year from the date on which a final order is passed under clause (a) of Section 20(2). Wherein an appeal or representation as mentioned in clause (b) of Section 20(2) has been made, there is a waiting period of six months provided, after which, if no final order is passed again the Tribunal has to be approached within one year after the expiry of the said six months. Sub-section (3) is a non-obstante clause and de hors sub-sections (1) and (2), an application can be admitted after the periods specified in clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
Hence, when a final order is challenged or an application is made and six months after the first representation filed remains un-responded, necessarily the Registry of the Tribunal has to make an endorsement as to such delay having been occasioned. In the present case, obviously neither the Registry nor the Tribunal looked at the aspect of delay which goes to the root of the matter, since the jurisdiction of the Tribunal arises only if there no delay or the delay has been properly explained so as to admit the OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 24 -
Original Application. There is also a practice prevalent of representations being made one after another and the Tribunal is approached within one year or slightly later after the last of such representations. No such delay condonation application, computing the limitation from the last of such applications can be entertained, since limitation commences from the first of such representations. If at all it is a continuing cause of action the Tribunals shall while allowing the delay condonation specify that, the relief if eventually granted, will only be from the date of the last representation, whether it is responded to or not.
20. There is also a ground raised that there were appointments made from the supplementary list when there were applicants available in the Main List, List II. These obviously where to satisfy the reservation turns. We see from Annexure A7 that those appointed from the supplementary lists were candidates belonging to Islam (two appointments), SC-Ayyanavar, SC-Vannan & SC-Pulaya, who were not available in List II. As far as the reservation turn of Christian-SIUC Nadar, the appointment was from List-II of Main List.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 25 -
In the above circumstances, though on merits we interfere with the order of the Tribunal, we dismiss the Original Petitions (KAT) on the ground of delay. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Vku/-
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 26 -
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 341/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
OA.NO.1299 OF 2018 FILED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE KAT.
EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED 31.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE PSC.
EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.757/16/SS IV
DATED 24.11.2016 PUBLISHED BY THE PSC. EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 15.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 16.11.2017 UNDER RTI.
EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2005 IN OP NO.7408/2001 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT SERVICE, GO(P)NO.32/93/IR.D DATED 30.07.1993.
EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART NO.RIC(3) 16649/16/GW DATED 16.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART NO.RIC(3) 16649/GW DATED 16.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR COMBINED GEO-SCIENTIST AND GEOLOGIST RECRUITMENT BY UPSC FOR THE YEAR 2015 DATED 21.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE COMBINED GEO-SCIENTIST AND GEOLOGIST RECRUITMENT BY UPSC FOR THE YEAR 2016 DATED 04.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF M.A.FOR JOINING TOGETHER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN OA NO.1299/2018.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 27 - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA.1299/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN IA NO.1299/2018.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (A)) TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH RESULT SHOWING THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE RANKED LIST RETRIEVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (B)) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RIC(3) 16649/16/GW DATED 05.06.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (C)) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E(2)/6306/2014 DGW DATED 12.07.2018 OF THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (D)) TRUE COPY OF THE MSC.(TECH) MARINE GEOPHYSICS DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.07.2004 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (E)) TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST NO.4468 DATED 11.12.2003 OF THE ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT AT MSC.(TECH) DEGREE SIXTH (FINAL) SEMESTER EXAMINATION IN MARINE GEOPHYSICS HELD IN DECEMBER, 2003.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (F)) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.AC.A1/9153/99/II DATED 12.07.2001 OF THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (G)) TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AC.A1/9153/99/II DATED 13.09.20905 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR(ACADEMIC), CUSAT. EXHIBIT P4(R4 (H)) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, HYDERABAD, NOTIFICATION NO.NGRI-4/2009.
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (I)) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.17.01.2006 IN WA NO.1676/2005 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P4(R4 (J)) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE REVISED SHORT LIST NO.112/2016/ER.III CATEGORY NO.002/11 DATED 25.04.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 28 -
EXHIBIT P4(R4 (K)) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.R & A II(3)-
7887/2011/GW CATEGORY NO.02/2011 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTEE DATED 31.03.3011. EXHIBIT P4(R4 (L)) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.314/2002/SSIV DATED 27.05.2005 PUBLISHED AS PER ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 06.12.2005. EXHIBIT P4(R4 (M)) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2003 DATED 11.07.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 3, 5, 6, 9 TO 14 IN OA.1299/2018. EXHIBIT P5(R1) TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM CUSAT DATED 22.05.2010.
EXHIBIT P5(R2) TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT ISSUED FROM CUSAT DATED 28.05.2004.
EXHIBIT P5(R3) TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE DATED 14.09.2015 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY CUSAT.
EXHIBIT P5(R4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1676/2005 DATED 17.01.2006.
EXHIBIT P5(R5) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.01.2007 FOR THE POST OF GEOPHYSICAL ASSISTANT.
EXHIBIT P5(R6) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST FOR THE POST OF GEO PHYSICAL ASSISTANT BEARING CATEGORY NO.04/2007 DATED 21.02.2009.
EXHIBIT P5(R7) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST RANK HOLDER IN ANNEXURE R6 RANKED LIST BEARING NO.RIC(3) 6255/09/GW DATED 10.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(R8) TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN MARINE GEO PHYSICS ISSUED TO 1ST RANK HOLDER IN ANNEXURE R6 RANK LIST. EXHIBIT P5(R9) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 07.04.2015, CATEGORY NO.002/2011.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 29 - EXHIBIT P5(R10) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED SHORT LIST
DATED 25.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CATEGORY NO.002/2011.
EXHIBIT P5(R11) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR CATEGORY NO.2/2011 FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF JUNIOR GEO PHYSICIST CONTAINING THE GENERAL CONDITIONS.
EXHIBIT P5(R12) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED 16.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P5(R13) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.E(2)/2017/2018/DGW DATED 10.07.2018. EXHIBIT P5(R14) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.E(2)/6306/2014/DGW DATED 16.03.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN OA NO.1299/2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR MARKING OF DOCUMENTS FILED IN OA NO.1299/2018.
EXHIBIT P7(A11) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 07.04.2015.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICATION TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO.1299/2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 3, 5, 6, 9 TO 14 & 18 FILED IN OA NO.1299/2018.
EXHIBIT P9 (A12) TRUE COPY OF THE P.G.CERTIFICATE AND MARK LIST OF THE 2ND APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2019 IN OA NO.1299/2018 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE P.S.C. [TRUE COPY] OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 30 -
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 356/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, O.A. NO.184/2018, FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KAT.
EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 31/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE PSC.
EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.757/16/SS IV DATED 24/11/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE PSC.
EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 15/10/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 16/11/2017 UNDER RTI.
EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/04/2005 IN OP NO.7408/2001 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT SERVICE, GO(P) NO.32/93/IR.D. DATED 30/07/1993.
EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR COMBINED GEO-SCIENTIST AND GEOLOGIST RECRUITMENT BY UPSC FOR THE YEAR 2015 DATED 21/02/2015.
EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE COMBINED GEO-SCIENTIST AND GEOLOGIST RECRUITMENT BY UPSC FOR THE YEAR 2016 DATED 04/03/2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P2(R1-A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RIC(3)/16649/16/GW DATED 04/06/2018 ISSUED BY THE PSC.
EXHIBIT P2(R1-B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RIC(3)/16649/16/GW DATED 16/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE PSC.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 31 -
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.A.
NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-1) TRUE COPY OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE P.S.C. EXHIBIT P4(R3-2) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE PSC IN CATEGORY NO.127/97 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE ON 02/09/1997.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-3) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED IN CATEGORY NO.127/97 ON 15/05/2001 IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 16/10/2001.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-4) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.314/2002/SSIV PUBLISHED ON 27/05/2005 IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 06/12/2005.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-5) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN O.P. NO.7408/2001 DATED 26/04/2005.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-6) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED RANK LIST NO.314/2002/SSIV DATED 27/05/2005 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE ON 06/12/2005.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-7) TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY UNDER RTI ACT DATED 04/09/2018 SUBMITTED TO THE PSC.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES FOR DISCUSSION OF THE MEETING OF PSC NO.A VIII(1) 11323/15/GW WITH RESPECT TO INCLUSION OF QUALIFICATION OF MARINE GEOPHYSICS IN LIST I. EXHIBIT P4(R3-8)(A)TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA FOR THE SECOND SITTING OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2016 DATED 11/01/2016.
EXHIBIT P4(R3-9) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.AC.C3/EQUL/15 (PF-2) DATED 14/09/2015 FROM COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 32 - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.184/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R3(10) EXHIBIT P5(R3-10) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION TO THE POST OF JUNIOR GEOPHYSICIST PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 31/03/2011.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-A) TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH RESULT SHOWING THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE RANKED LIST RETRIEVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RIC(3) 16649/16/GW DATED 05/06/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E(2)/6306/2014 DGW DATED 12/07/2018 OF THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-D) TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC. (TECH) MARINE GEOPHYSICS DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 07/07/2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-E) TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST NO.4468 DATED 11/12/2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AT M.SC. (TECH) DEGREE SIXTH (FINAL) SEMESTER EXAMINATION IN MARINE GEOPHYSICS HELD IN DECEMBER, 2003.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-F) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.AC.A1/9153/99/II DATED 12/07/2001 OF THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-G) TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AC.A1/9153/99/II DATED 13/09/2005 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (ACADEMIC), CUSAT.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 33 -
EXHIBIT P7(R5-H) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE NATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, HYDERABAD, NOTIFICATION NO.NGRI-4/2009.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-I) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/01/2006 IN WA NO.1676/2005 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-J) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE REVISED SHORT LIST NO.112/2016/ER.III CATEGORY NO.002/11 DATED 25/04/2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-K) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.R&A II(3) 7887/2011/GW CATEGORY NO.02/2011 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 31/03/2011.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-L) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.314/2002/SSIV DATED 27/05/2005 PUBLISHED AS PER ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 06/12/2005.
EXHIBIT P7(R5-M) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2003 DATED 11/07/2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR INTERIM STAY FILED IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P9(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT) NO.110/2018/WRD DATED 16/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR MARKING DOCUMENT FILED IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P10(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 07/04/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN O.S. NO.184/2018 TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 34 -
EXHIBIT P11(A11) TRUE COPY OF THE P.G. CERTIFICATE AND
MARK LIST OF THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
FOR IMPLEADING FILED IN O.A. NO.184/2018.
EXHIBIT P12(MA-I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(2)/6306/14/DGW DATED 16/03/2017 OF THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P12(MA-II) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RIC(3)/16649/16/GW DATED 05/06/2018 OF THE SECRETARY, KPSC.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2019 IN O.A. NO.184/2018 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
[TRUE COPY] OP(KAT).341 & 356 of 2019 - 35 -