Kerala High Court
Akhok Kumar K vs Jayaprakash K on 9 December, 2016
Author: V Shircy
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/3RD KARTHIKA, 1939
OP(KAT).No. 398 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 410/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 09-12-2016
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RA 17/2017 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14-09-2017
PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW APPLICANTS 1 to 4 & 6 to 11.:
--------------------------------
1. AKHOK KUMAR K
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT MALAYADI HOUSE, PANAYAMUTTOM PO,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695561,
PH.8606893809.
2. NAISAM E.A
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O ESAHAK O, RESIDENT OF K.K VILLA,
KALLUVETTAMKUZHI,MANCODE PO, KOLLAM.691559
PH.9447501985
3. RENJU G PANICKER,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O G. RAJU, RESIDENT OF RENJU BHAVAN,
THURUTHIKARA PO, KUNNATHOOR,KOLLAM.690540.
4. PRAVEEN KUMAR G,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O P. GOPINATHA KURUP,
RESIDENT OF MUPPIDICHERRYVELI,
KALAVOOR PO, ALAPPUZHA.688522.
5. VIMAL MOHAN,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O MOHANAN, RESIDENT OF
KURUMBAYIL HOUSE, VANDAMATTOM PO,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.685582.
6. PAULSON SUNIL SOZA,
AGD 38 YEARS, T.P ANTONY SOZA,
RESIDENT OF THERAKAL HOUSE, WARD NO.III,
PULAYAS ROAD, NARAKAL PO, ERNAKULAM.682505.
7. BINO K.J
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O JOHNY KP, RESIDENT OF
KUNDUKULAM HOUSE, THIROOR , M.G KAVU PO,
THRISSUR.680581.
OP(KAT).No. 398 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
8. RAMAKRISHNAN P.P
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O UNNIKRISHNAN,
RESIDENT OF KOPPAYIL HOUSE, VENDALLUR,
IRIMBILIYAM PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 679572.
9. RATHEESH A
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
RESIDENT OF PANICHINGATHARAMMEL,
MATTANODE PO, KOORACHUND, KOZHIKODE.673527.
10. PRAJEESH MANIKKOTH,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O P.K JANARDHANAN,
RESIDENT OF PRATHIBHA NIVAS,
ERATTENGAL, MALOOR PO, KANNUR-670702.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJU JOHN
SRI.M.FATHAHUDEEN
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS in O.A & Review applicant 5.:
--------------------------------------
1. JAYAPRAKASH K
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR,
SINDHU BHAVAN, BALANTHODE, PANATHADY PO,
VIA RAJAPURAM, KASARGODE, KERALA, PIN.671532,
MOBILE.9400101694.
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPSC OFFICE,
THULSI HILL, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695004.
3. DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE, KASARGODE, KERALA, PIN.671121.
4. ANISH K.V
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O VASU KURUP,
RESIDENT OF KARUVELIL, NEDUMANNAY PO,
KOTTAYAM.686582, PH.9947140728
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
R1 BY ADV. KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
R2 & R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 398 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA 410/2016 WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2016 OF THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A 410/2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RA 17/2017 WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2017 IN RA 17/2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13.5.2014 UNDER
CATEGORY 216/2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.514/16/DOB DATED
30.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF ADVICES MADE FROM THE RANKED
LIST.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DATED 16.2.2017.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.712 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A 775/2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
SHIRCY V, JJ.
..............................................................................
O.P(KAT)No.398 OF 2017
.........................................................................
Dated this the 25th October , 2017
J U D G M E N T
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioners herein (non-parties to O.A.410 of 2016) are before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts.P2 and P4. Ext. P2 is the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.410 of 2016; whereas Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Review Applications filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing counsel for the KPSC and the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the first respondent.
3. The sum and substance of the case projected before this Court is as to the scope of the qualification prescribed by the PSC while issuing Annexure A1 notification. As per the said notification, PSC invited application from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Driver Gr.II (LDV). The qualifications prescribed as per Annexure A1 are in the following terms:
O.P(KAT)No.398 OF 2017 2 "1. A pass in Standard VII/III Forum
2. Must possess valid Driving Licence of three years standing to drive Light Motor Vehicle with Driver's badge.
3. Proficiency in Driving Light motor vehicles which is to be proved in a practical test conducted by KPSC during the course of selection. Only those who pass 'H' test are eligible for Road test. "
4. The PSC proceeded with the selection of candidates, who were having valid driving licence for a period of three years and who were also having valid 'Badge' for a period of three years ( authorising to drive transport vehicles) and they alone were coming within the zone of consideration. This according to the first respondent was not correct or proper in so far as the notification insisted three years' standing only in respect of 'driving licence' and not in respect of 'Badge'. It was accordingly that the proceedings were sought to be intercepted by filing O.A. with the following prayers:
"i) to set aside clause 1 of Annexure A3 which stipulates that applicant should possess three years standing driver's badge prior to 16.4.2014 for being considered for selection to the post of Driver Gr.II (LDV) in Kasaragod district
ii) to direct the .2nd respondent to permit the applicant to participate in the certificate verification and the practical test scheduled from 23.02.2016 to 26.2.2016 for selection to the post of Driver Gr.II (LDV) in various O.P(KAT)No.398 OF 2017 3 departments in Kasaragod district;
iii) to declare that the applicant is qualified for the post of Driver Gr.II (LDV) in various departments in Kasaragod district (category No.16/2014) on the basis of Annexure A2.
iv) to direct the 2nd respondent to include the name of the applicant in the appropriate place in the ranked list to be published for the post of Driver Gr.II(LDV) in various departments in Kasaragod district (Category No.16/2014) on the basis of the marks obtained by the applicant during the selection process;
v) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
vi) allow the application with costs."
5. After hearing the parties and after going through the materials on record, the Tribunal observed that the issue had already come up for consideration before the Tribunal on an earlier instance, by way of O.A.696 of 2016,. wherein Annexure RA-2 judgment was passed holding that three years' stipulation was only in respect of 'driving licence' and never in respect of 'Badge'. Such a view was taken by the Tribunal based on the verdict passed by this Court as per Annexure RA-3. This was to the chagrin of the petitioners herein, who approached the Tribunal by filing Review Applications pointing out that the O.P(KAT)No.398 OF 2017 4 qualification mentioned in Annexure RA2/RA3 was Driving Licence' AND Badge; whereas in the instant case, Annexure A1 notification used a different terminology, by expressing it as 'with Badge'. By virtue of the conscious exercise -using the terminology with, the 'Badge' should go along with the 'driving licence' and hence three years standing was necessary in respect of the 'driving licence' and the 'Badge'. It was accordingly, that Ext.P2 verdict was sought to be reviewed.
6. The Review Applications were opposed by the respondents in the O.A., also pointing out that they were belated and they will not come within the purview of the statutory prescription, apart from the absence of merit. After hearing, interference was declined and the Review Applications were dismissed as per Ext.P4, which made the petitioners to approach this Court by way of this Original Petition.
7. As a matter of fact, the O.A. wherein Ext.P2 order was passed, was dealing with the grievance of a person, who belonged to Kasaragod District. Selection and appointment is in respect of different districts and by virtue of the course pursued, much loss and hardships have been stated as caused to the O.P(KAT)No.398 OF 2017 5 petitioners, who belong to different districts in Kerala. The operative portion of the verdict passed by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 reads as follows:
"11. The Review Applicants contend that the PSC has decided to consider the application of all the candidates having Driver's Badge on the last date of submission of the applications for appointment to the post of Driver Grade -III. It is clear that the order under review did not give any such direction to the PSC. If the PSC has taken any such decision, it may be open to be challenged independently in appropriate proceedings. I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 9.12.2016 issued in O.A.No.410 of 2016 at the instance of the Review Applicants.
12. It is made clear that I have not gone into the various contentions urged against the order since it is not necessary in this proceedings."
8. From the above, it is quite clear that the right to pursue the matter before the Tribunal by raising appropriate pleadings is left open. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that several other O.As, such as Ext.P9 are pending consideration before the Tribunal. In the said circumstance, we find that interference with Ext.P2/P4 is not warranted in this case. The O.P. stands dismissed without prejudice to the right of the O.P(KAT)No.398 OF 2017 6 petitioners to move the Tribunal by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. We make it clear that we are not expressing any view with regard to the scope of the qualification notified in Annexure A1.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE SHIRCY V, JUDGE lk