Kerala High Court
Sandeep V vs Kerala State Public Service Commission on 13 June, 2014
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF JULY2017/9TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 38280 of 2016 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. SANDEEP V.,
VAZHAKKATTU HOUSE,
MANASSERY P.O, MUKKOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 602
2. VIJESH M.K.,
MUTTATH KANDIYIL HOUSE,
PARAMBIL P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 012
3. ARAVIND.B.,
GOURISADHAN HOUSE,
CHIRAKKADAVU CENTER P.O,
THEKKETHKAVALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 519
4. YUNUS A.P.,
PARAMBIL HOUSE, OLATTUCHAL,
KOTTALI P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 005
5. SAJAN S.S.,
S.S.BHAVAN, THACHAMAN,
KUVALASSERY P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 512
6. VIPIN KUMAR T.J.,
THOTTUMKARA HOUSE, KADAKKARAPALLY,
CHERTHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 529
7. NITHIN K.G.,
KALANGADAN HOUSE,
NARIKKUNDU P.O, AMBALAVAYAL,
WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 593
8. ANIL DEEPU.G.C.,
PUNATHIL HOUSE, MEPPAYYUR P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 524
9. IJAS. T.M.,
ARUKALIKKAL VEEDU, MULLIKARA,
THEVALAKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 524
2/-
-2-
WP(C).No. 38280 of 2016 (H)
10. KISHORE.N.K,
KAVYALAYAM HOUSE, MARANADU P.O,
EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 505
11. RAHUL.P.S.,
GOPIKA HOUSE, KURVILIKODE,
KARUVALAI P.O, NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 330
12. RATHEESH.M.,
RAM NIVAS, MELATHUMELE,
MANIKANTESWARAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 013
13. ANAS. S.,
VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADATHOOR,
K.S.PURAM P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 544
14. MUHAMMED SHA.S.,
SHA MANZIL, KADATHOOR, K.S.PURAM P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 544
15. HARISH K.S.,
VAZHATHARAYIL, PONNAKULAM,
PONNAKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 544
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.PAREETH
SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004
2. SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004
3/-
-3-
WP(C).No. 38280 of 2016 (H)
3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R3 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-07-2017, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 24909/2016, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 38280 of 2016 (H)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
P1 ATRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/6/2014 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER CATEGORY NO. 272/2014
P2 ATRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH
PETITIONER
P3 ATRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/9/2016 FROM THE CHIEF
ENGINEER (HRD & GENERAL) OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P4 ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4/10/12016 ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT PUBLISHING THE PROBABILITY LIST FOR
SELECTION TO THE POST OF OPERATOR IN THE 3RD RESPONDENT
WATER AUTHORITY
P4(A) ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9/11/2016 UNDER CATEGORY
NO.078/2013 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
P5 ATRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/10/2016 FOR INFORMATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER
P5(A) ATRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER
P5(B) ATRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MAIN LIST OF
THE RANKED LIST DATED 26/11/2009 UNDER CATEGORY 22/2006 FOR THE
POST OF OPERATOR IN THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
P6 ATRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART
P7 ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/11/2016 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 11 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
P.V.ASHA, J.
--------------------------
W.P(C) Nos. 24909 of 2016-K
and
38280 of 2016-H
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
As the issue arising in both these writ petitions is common, both these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in the W.P.(C) No. 38280 of 2016, unless specified otherwise.
2. The Kerala Public Service Commission (`PSC' for short) issued a notification dated 13.6.2014 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Operators in the Kerala Water Authority, the 3rd respondent. The number of vacancies notified in Ext.P1 was only 11. However, it was notified that the number of candidates to be included in the short list/ probability list would be decided as per the availability of admitted applications. It was further stated that the list of selected candidates published by the Commission pursuant to the notification shall remain in force for a minimum period of one year and a maximum period of 3 years and candidates would be advised against vacancies shown in the W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 2 notification and against all the vacancies reported during the period of pendency of the rank list. The petitioners in both these cases are candidates who appeared in the written test after submitting applications pursuant to that notification. The written test was conducted on 24.6.2015. Thereafter, the PSC published Ext P4 probability list (short list) on 4.10.2016 including candidates who were provisionally found eligible to be included in the rank list. Even though the Kerala Water Authority had reported 555 vacancies as on 06.09.2016, there were only 1002 candidates in the main list of the short list. Supplementary lists of different communities were also published which contained large number of candidates from the respective communities eligible for communal reservation. Some of the petitioners are included in such supplementary lists. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the PSC in not including sufficient number of candidates in the main list in tune with the number of vacancies which were reported and pending before the PSC before the publication of the short list. They are therefore seeking directions to the PSC to expand the short list/ranked list.
3. The petitioners' case is that when the Kerala Water Authority had reported 555 vacancies to the PSC, as on 06.09.2016, the short list W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 3 which was published on 04.10.2016 ought to have included candidates equal to thrice the number of vacancies which were reported to it before the short list was published. Producing Ext.P6 appointment chart the petitioners pointed out that, 1235 candidates were advised from the previous rank list, which expired on 12.12.2012. It is also pointed out that out of the 1235 candidates, 1136 were advised from the main list as on 25.6.2012. It is their further case that when the previous rank list was in force, several of the candidates included therein were included in the rank lists for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Meter Reader, Sub Engineer etc, also. Therefore, a large number of persons appointed from the previous list as Operators left the Water Authority, on account of which several vacancies arose in the Water Authority before and after the publication of the short list. They pointed out that such candidates who already got appointment in various posts from various rank lists are included in this probability list Ext.P4 also. It is the further case of the petitioners that the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the supplementary list will not be of any use, once the main list is exhausted.
4. The Kerala Water Authority filed a statement furnishing the W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 4 number of vacancies of Operators reported to the PSC from time to time, which is given as follows:
Balance when the last list expired 22 10/07/14 3 22/9/14 113 04/05/15 17 31/10/15 56 07/12/15 190 06/09/16 154 Total 555 Thus there were 555 vacancies pending before the PSC, even one month before the date of publication of the short list on 04.10.2016.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that based on Ext.P1 notification, 10974 applications were received; number of vacancies reported to the PSC at the time of submitting selection proposal was only 144; as per decision No.16 dt.12.10.2015, the PSC decided to publish a probability list including 1000 eligible and qualified candidates who secured top marks in the main list with necessary supplementary list as per rules and to prepare the rank list after certificate verification. The probability list was published on 4.10.2016 including 1002 candidates in the W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 5 main list and 2891 candidates in various supplementary lists. The certificate verification of candidates included in the probability list was conducted from 30.11.2016 to 15.12.2016. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit, the rank list was published on 22.6.2017 with 950 candidates in the main list and 2597 candidates in various supplementary lists for various communities. It is admitted that 1282 candidates were advised from the previous ranked list which came into force on 26.09.2009. According to the PSC it is for the Commission to decide the mode of selection and the number of candidates to be included in the probability list on the basis of various factors including the number of vacancies reported for the post at the time of finalisation of selection, number of candidates advised from the previous rank list etc. However it is stated that the normal practice is to publish a short list with thrice the number of vacancies reported and advised from the previous ranked list.
6. In the additional affidavit filed on 03.07.2017, pointing out the publication of the ranked list on 22.06.2017, the PSC has stated that all the petitioners in W.P.(C) 32380/2016, except 4 of them are included in the supplementary lists of various communities.
W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 6
7. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit pointing out that there were 1136 candidates in the main list of the previous rank list and 1132 of them were advised; whereas only 150 candidates were advised from the different supplementary lists altogether and therefore there is no point in including large number of candidates in the supplementary list.
8. The complaint of the petitioners in W.(C).No.24909 of 2016, who had filed the writ petition before the publication of the short list was that PSC was not publishing a short list even when 401 vacancies were reported to it as on 4.7.2016. They had also approached the PSC with a representation on 15.7.2016, which is produced as Ext.P5 in their writ petition pointing out that adequate number of candidates will not be there in case a short list not including 2000 candidates in the main list is published as there were already 401 vacancies pending before the PSC. It was also pointed out that the number of ineligible hands would be more after verification of certificates and therefore sufficient number of candidates has to be included in the main list of the short list.
9. I heard M/s. P.M.Pareed and Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases as well as Sri P.C.Sasidharan, the W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 7 learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and Sri Benjamin Paul, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority. Incidentally both sides relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295]. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the stand of the PSC before the Full Bench was that the number of vacancies to be included in the short list/rank list was being decided on the basis of the number of vacancies reported as on the date of publication of short list. The learned Counsel for the PSC relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana, which was relied on in Ravidas' case, and argued that action of the PSC was perfectly in accordance with the dictum laid down in that case that the number of candidates to be included in the short list shall not exceed twice or maximum thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there was only a verification of certificates in this case, after publication of the short list and all those who were found qualified, were included in the ranked list on the basis of the marks in the written test ; no interview was conducted. On the other hand in Ashok kumar Yadav's case the Apex Court had specifically W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 8 dealt with a case where a composite test consisting of written examination followed by viva voce. It was while considering the case of such a selection involving written test and viva voce that the Apex Court directed that the number of candidates to be called for interview shall not exceed twice or the maximum thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. It was pointed out that the cases which the Full Bench considered also consisted of interview.
10. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment dated 27.09.2010 in Writ Petition Nos.23559 and 24430 of 2008, judgment dt.5.11.2007 in W.P(C).No.25416/2007, which was affirmed in judgment dated 22.5.2008 in W.A.No.368 of 2008, judgment dated 7.1.2010 in 35315/2009 and the judgment dated 3.3.17 in O.P(KAT) No.111/2014, in support of his contention that there is no basis for the claim for enlargement of the rank list.
11. It is pertinent to note that all these cases leading to the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, the PSC had defended their action referring to the number of vacancies which were reported to them at the time of publication of the short list. The following observations in Ravidas' case is relevant:
W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 9
"42.xxxxx No material has been placed before us to show that besides the 81 notified vacancies, other vacancies had been reported to the Commission before the preparation of the shortlist and the ranked list. Therefore, it cannot be said that adequate number of candidates were not included in Ext.P6 shortlist or in the ranked list published on 2.7.2005. In any case, the ranked list contained more than 3 times the number of notified vacancies and from the ranked list, 258 candidates were also advised. Therefore, we find no illegality in the preparation of Ext.P6 shortlist or the ranked list published by the Commission on 2.7.2005 for the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department."
12. In this context it is relevant to note that the PSC had been limiting the number of candidates in the short list and ranked list on the basis of cut off marks in the written test. In the judgment in Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006(3) KLT 854] a Division Bench of this court held that the said procedure adopting cut off marks was illegal. The consistent stand being adopted by PSC thereafter, as evident from the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, including Ravidas' case (supra) is that decision regarding the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list was being taken with reference to the vacancies available before the PSC when the short list was published.
13. It is relevant to note that the Full Bench had in Ravidas' case noticed that the notifications leading to those selections involved therein did not mention anything regarding the number of candidates to be included in the short list or ranked list. Referring to circular No.30 of 2003 W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 10 dt.1.12.2003 of the PSC the Full Bench had observed that the Commission had clarified that the number of candidates to be included in the short list or in the rank list should not be decided mechanically and that Commission will decide upon the number to be included in each case considering the number of vacancies reported, number of candidates advised from the previous list, the nature of post and chances of occurrence of vacancies and that the number of candidates to be included in the supplementary list of reservation group of communities will also be decided by the Commission in each case considering where the rotation stands and the number of turn such as NJD/NCA/TPO etc. to be satisfied bearing in mind that reservation communities should not lose their turn due to paucity of candidates.
14. But in Ext.P1 notification it is stated that the number of candidates to be included in the short list/ probability list would be decided as per the availability of admitted applications. According to the counter affidavit 10974 applications were received pursuant to the notification. Nothing is stated regarding the admitted application. Only answer is that the decision to finalise the selection was taken on 12.10.2015 to include 1000 candidates and as on that day the number of vacancies reported was 144. W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 11
15. On consideration of the pleadings and the rival contentions, it is seen that the PSC has adopted an entirely different stand in this case reckoning the vacancies which were available before the PSC 'at the time of finalisation of the selection proposal' . The PSC took its decision No. 16 to publish the probability list with 1000 candidates on 12.10.2015, one year before the publication of short list. No reason is stated either for taking the decision to finalise the selection one year before publication of the short list or the reason for publishing the short list after one year of the alleged decision to finalise the list. No reason is stated for not reckoning the vacancies which were reported to it and pending before it subsequent to the alleged decision and before the publication of the short list.
16. The definite case of the PSC, as stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit is as follows:
"8. The number of candidates to be included in the short list/rank list is decided by the Commission by considering the number to be included in each case, considering the number of vacancies reported, number of candidates advised from the previous list, nature of the post and chances of occurrence of vacancies. As per the existing practice, the short list/rank list should contain 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the pendency of the previous rank list. In this case, the number of vacancies reported for the post till date is 544, but only 144 vacancies were reported for the post at the time of submitting selection proposal. In addition, only 1282 candidates were advised from the previous rank list which came into force w.e.f 26.11.2009. Hence inclusion of 1002 candidates in the main list or the probability list is in order."
(emphasis supplied) W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 12 In the above circumstances, there was no reason to adopt a method different from the normal practice in the present case when the number of vacancies reported enhanced from 144 in 10/2015 to 555 in 09/2016.
17. Now I shall examine the other judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel. On perusal of those judgments it is seen that the circumstances arising in those cases were entirely different. The contention in the writ petitions-W.P(c).Nos.23559/2008 and 24430 of 2008 was that the respondents had fixed a cut off mark for preparing the short list. But accepting the contention of the PSC that the short lists were not published on the basis of the cut off mark and following the judgment of the Full Bench, those writ petitions were dismissed. The contention of the PSC in those cases was that not a single vacancy of HSST was reported to PSC prior to finalisation of the short list and in the case of HSST Junior, only 8 vacancies were reported. It is relevant to note the following observations in para.6 of the judgment, where the number of vacancies reported to PSC was considered:
"6. xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx Admittedly, though no vacancies of HSST were reported prior to the finalisation of Ext.P4 short list, it contained names of 70 candidates. In the case of Ext.P5 short list, only 8 vacancies (NJD) were reported prior to its finalisation and the said list contained names of 39 candidates in the main W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 13 list and 55 candidates in its supplementary lists."
18. This Court found that as against no vacancy a short list containing 70 candidates with a break up of 25 candidates in the main list and a total of 45 candidates in the supplementary list was published and as against 8 vacancies of HSST Junior, a shot list with 94 candidates was published. The circumstances which arose in that case were entirely different. Similarly, in the judgment dt.5.11.2007 in W.P(C).No.25416/07, the candidates who applied for appointment as HSST Junior in Political Science filed the writ petition aggrieved by the size of the rank list with only 54 candidates in the main list. The number of vacancies available for appointment was stated as 81. But the PSC filed a counter affidavit stating that there were only 20 vacancies at the time of drawing up the short list and as against those 20 vacancies, short list with 54 candidates in the main list and 127 in the supplementary list was published. The Division Bench also found that PSC had followed the guidelines issued by them while preparing the short list. In the judgment dt.7.1.2010 in 35315/2009, the petitioners were candidates for selection and appointment to the post of L.D Clerks in Ernakulam district. A rank list containing 795 candidates was published. The contention of the petitioners was that cut off marks of 70% was W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 14 adopted. The PSC filed a counter affidavit stating that the rank list was prepared in the year 2005 on the basis of the requisition received. This Court found that no interference was required in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench in Ravidas's case seeing that the rank list was prepared on the basis of the number of vacancies that was available before the PSC. The Division Bench judgment dt.3.3.2017 in O.P(KAT) No.111/2014 is entirely on a different issue. The question regarding the number of vacancies available as on the date of publication of the rank list or the question of expansion of the short list was not an issue considered therein. The issue raised therein was with respect to the qualification and eligibility criteria for the post of HSST and HSST Junior in Sociology, in the light of the fact that there was no B.Ed degree in the said subject. Even though the Full Bench judgment was referred to therein, the circumstances which arose therein cannot be compared with the circumstances arising in this case.
19. A perusal of the judgments including those relied on by the learned Standing Counsel would reveal that the size of the short list was being determined as three times the vacancies which were pending before the PSC when the short list was published. That being so, there is no reason W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 15 for limiting the number of candidates in the short list by not reckoning the 555 vacancies which were available before the PSC even a month before the short list was published and for not reckoning the 1282 advices made from the previous ranked list. From the counter affidavit of the Water Authority it is evident that 555 vacancies were available before the PSC as on 04.09.2016. These facts and figures are admitted by the PSC also. Therefore there is no reason for not publishing a short list with only 1002 candidates in the main list, which came down to 950 by the time the ranked list was published. Thrice the number of vacancies would come to 1665.
20. The availability of large number of candidates in the supplementary ranked list will not be of any useful purpose, because candidates from those lists will be advised only in the absence of any candidate in the main list from that particular community. When every alternate vacancy is to be filled up by a candidate with communal reservation, there is every possibility that the main list will get exhausted once the PSC starts with the advice of candidates against the vacancies reported. If the reservation turns are filled from the mainlist itself, no purpose will be served by including more number of candidates in the W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 16 supplementary list alone. Once the main list is exhausted, the supplementary list will not have any independent existence.
21. Referring to para.42 of the judgment in Ravidas' case the learned Standing Counsel argued that the recruitment by the PSC is a continuous and ongoing process and every year thousands of students pass out from different colleges and therefore the petitioners cannot have any right to insist that rank list shall be enlarged, when the rank list has already been published.
22. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the claim of the petitioners before the Full Bench was that the vacancies arising during a period of 3 years from its publication shall be reckoned for publication of the short list/ranked list. In this case it is pointed out that the previous rank list was published in the year 2009 and the present rank list is in 2017. Therefore, while the petitioners point out that there is a gap of 8 years for publication of the rank list, the respondent point out that the notification was published in the year 2014 and in between 2014 and 2017, several candidates would have become eligible for submitting application.
W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 17
23. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that once the ranked list is published, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, especially when the ranked list is not under challenge. It is true that the ranked list is not under challenge. But the petitioners are seeking only an expansion of the ranked list. They do not challenge the inclusion of any candidate in the ranked list. Moreover the petitioners in one case are before this court even before the short list was published and in the other case, immediately after publication of the ranked list. Even the counter affidavit was filed before the ranked list was published. Petitioners do not claim that vacancies which are likeli to arise during the three years from publication of ranked list should be reckoned. They only seek directions to adopt the normal practice, which the PSC has been adopting i.e, a ranked list with a main list with candidates equal to thrice the number of vacancies which were available before the PSC before the short list was published. In this context the directions issued by the Division Bench in Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006(3) KLT 854] is relevant, where this court had directed the PSC to publish an additional list of candidates. Such claims do not go contrary to the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Ravidas's case W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 18 (supra), which approved Ajayan's case. It is also relevant to note para.4 of the judgment in Ajayan's case (supra) where the Division Bench had noticed the contention of PSC that against 43 vacancies reported, 136 candidates in the main list and necessary number of candidates in the supplementary list were included. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar v. State of Kerala [(2015) 11 SCC 307] directed the PSC that since the appellants therein were fighting the litigation by approaching the Tribunal at the earliest point of time, the expiry of the rank list shall not stand in the way of considering the names of appellants for issuing appointment orders as directed therein. In this case also , petitioners have approached this Court at the earliest point of time. They cannot be non-suited saying that rank list is published.
24. From the materials available on record, it can be safely concluded that the publication of the short list and ranked list without reckoning the vacancies available before the PSC when the short list was published, deviating from the normal practice is totally unreasonable. The petitioners, who appeared in the written test have every right to be considered for employment under the State consistent with Articles 14 and W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 19 16 of the Constitution of India, adopting the normal practice of preparing/ publishing short list on the basis of the vacancies available when the short list was published. The discriminatory action of the PSC has resulted in annihilation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, which is liable to be rectified. The fact that there are a number of vacancies in the supplementary list will not be of any fruitful purpose, since the supplementary list will be operated only if there are no candidates available in the main list in a community and only if the main list is not exhausted.
25. Therefore, the circumstances arising in the case demands enlargement of the ranked list by enhancing the number of candidates in the ranked list by adopting the admittedly 'existing practice to thrice the number of vacancies reported and advised from the previous ranked list' which will come to 555x3 or 1282x3. Now that there are only 950 candidates in the mainlist, it is necessary that an additional rank list is issued, including such number of candidates so that the total number of candidates in the main list comes to thrice the number of vacancies reported. It will be sufficient if there is an additional list containing 555 more candidates in the main list.
In the above circumstances there shall be a direction to the PSC to W.P(C) No.38280 of 2016-H &24909/2016-K 20 take emergent steps to publish an additional ranked list after publishing a short list of candidates, with 555 candidates in the main list with appropriate number of candidates in the supplementary lists, followed by verification of their certificates, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. PSC shall thereafter advise candidates from the ranked lists in accordance with law. There shall be a further direction that the additional ranked list to be published, shall be operated even if the main list of the ranked list, already published on 22.06.2017 gets exhausted in the meanwhile.
These writ petitions are allowed as above.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/