Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Geetha Lakshmi K vs The State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2019
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.7557 OF 2009
GEETHA LAKSHMI K. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2008 passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by which writ appeal, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed.
The Kerala Public Service Commission pursuant to a written examination conducted in 1999 published a rank list on 28.03.2001 for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) to Kozhikode District. After due process of selection, the rank list was brought into force w.e.f. 28.03.2001. The appellant was included in the rank list with Rank No.18 in the supplementary list meant for Ezhava Community (OBC). The rank list admittedly expired on 28.03.2004 i.e. after running its maximum normal period of 3 years. However, rank list was extended for six months. In Signature Not Verified the meantime, the appointment of teachers in schools owned Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.01.21 09:47:31 IST Reason: by the Grama Panchayaths was brought under the purview of Public Service Commission. The Commission decided to fill- 1 up the vacancies reported by the panchayath schools from the above rank list. The Secretary, Maniyur Gramna Panchayath reported one vacancy for the post of High School Assistant on 27.03.2004. The District Officer, Kozhikode had advised the appellant for appointment to the post on 15.12.2004. The District Officer, Kozhikode had issued a notification in local newspaper on 14.09.2004 directing the candidates included in the rank for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) to express their willingness to be considered against the vacancies reported from Grama Panchayath Schools before 30.09.2004. Although, no individual notices were given to the candidates in the rank list. The appellant expressed her willingness for appointment. Appointment order was issued by the Manager Maniyoor Panchayath, Secondary School appointing the appellant as High School Assistant (Physical Science) on 12.01.2005. The appellant joined the school. She was served with a show cause notice on 30.08.2005 calling upon her to show cause why the advise could not been cancelled. The show cause notice mentioned about some irregularity in obtaining consent for appointment in Panchayath Schools. The appellant submitted her reply, but rejecting her contention, her advise was cancelled by Public Service Commission by communication dated 17.11.2005. Based on the cancellation advise, Panchayath terminated her service by proceeding dated 01.12.2005. The writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation of the advise & termination of 2 her services.
The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 22.11.2006 against which the writ appeal was filed. The writ appeal having been dismissed, the appellant has come up in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that appellant had continued in service and has discharged her duties on the post and in the meantime she has also attained the age of superannuation. This Court has passed an interim order on 02.05.2008 staying the operation of the judgment and order of the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no mistake on the part of the appellant to enable the Commission to cancel her advise. There was no prescribed procedure for intimating the candidates in the rank list and the publication in the newspaper was admittedly made, hence appellant cannot be penalised so as to cancel her advise and appointment. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that although respondent No.6 was appointed after cancellation of advise in favour of the appellant, but she never joined and she continued to work in the institution where she was earlier working. Learned counsel for the Commission refuting the submission contends that when the vacancies to be filled in Panchayath came, in the meantime, it was obligatory for 3 the Commission to inform each and every candidate individually to advise the best of them to hold the post seeking their consent. He further submitted that since in the present case no individual intimation was sent to the candidates included in the rank list, the Commission has rightly cancelled the advise of the appellant.
After having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that no blame can be put on the appellant in the whole process. Advertisement having been issued in the newspaper asking the consent of those who were included in the rank list and appellant having expressed her willingness, she was advised and appointment was issued. Learned counsel for the Commission may, however, be right that with regard to intimation to each person included in the rank list, individual intimation ought to have been sent which has been accepted by the Courts below. But in the facts of the present case where the appellant continued to discharge her duties till she attained the age of superannuation, at this distance of time, we are not persuaded to enter into the issue as to whether the procedure adopted by Commission asking for willingness of the candidates in the rank list for appointment in Panchayath School was correct or not.
In the peculiar facts of the present case, we thus, 4 without entering into the rival contentions of the parties, close the appeal by setting aside the judgments of Courts below, leaving the questions of law open. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
...................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) ...................J. (K.M. JOSEPH) New Delhi January 08, 2019 5 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.11 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).7557/2009 GEETHA LAKSHMI K Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 08-01-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. P.B. Suresh, Adv. Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Jshnu M.L., Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
6