Kerala High Court
The District Officer vs Asha Devi L on 7 October, 2016
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
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.
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017/6TH SRAVANA, 1939
OP(KAT).No. 222 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 382/2015 of KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 07-10-2016
PETITIONER(S)/4TH RESPONDENT:
----------------------------
THE DISTRICT OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE,EASTERN ENTRY TOWER,SOUTH RAILWAY
STATION,COCHIN-682018,KERALA.
BYADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
----------------------------------------------
1. ASHA DEVI L.,
W/O SANTHOSH KUMAR.P,AGED 36 YEARS,AMBIKA BHAVANAM,
KARALI JUCTION.P.O,SASTHAM COTTA,KOLLAM,KERALA-690521.
2. GEEVARGHESE.P,
S/O PHILIP,AGED 33 YEARS,ABHI DALE,PALLIMON.P.O,
KOLLAM,KERALA-691576.
3. LAISY JAMES,
W/O PAULSON MATHEW,AGED 41 YEARS,CHANDRAMKUNNEL
HOUSE,KALAYANTHANI.P.O,ALAKODE,THODUPUZHA-685588,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4. SINIJA.K,
W/O SURESH.K.C,AGED 30 YEARS,KUDIMADAM HOUSE,
CHERANALLOOR.P.O,KOOVAPPADY VIA,
CHERANALLOOR-683544,ERNAKULAM,KERALA.
5. NAZIRA.E.A,
W/O MUHAMMED ANSAR.M.K,AGED 36 YEARS,MUNDETH HOUSE,
EDAVOOR.P.O,EDAVOOR-683544,ERNAKULAM,KERALA.
6. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARYTO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA,TRIVANDRUM,KERALA-695001.
OP(KAT).No. 222 of 2017 (Z)
---------------------------- --2--
7. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
O/O.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,THYCADU,
TRIVANDRUM-695014,KERALA.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD-682030,ERNAKULAM,
KERALA.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (Sr).T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
THIS OP KERALAADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 222 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.382 OF 2015 WITH ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.382 OF 2015
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.1350 OF 2016 DATED 27/07/2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CONTEMPT TO COURT PETITION AS C.P(C)NO.1/16,TO
INITIATE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
SMM
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
The alleged conflict between Exts.P4 and P5 verdicts made the petitioner/District Officer PSC to approach this Court challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal directing the PSC to advise 7 candidates in respect of the 7 vacancies directed to be reported, and in fact reported, pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal, before the expiry of the rank list.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/Department.
3. The sum and substance of the case revealed by the PSC is that the 4th respondent and 4 others had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A against the non-reporting of vacancies in the post of HSA (Physical O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 2 Science) in Ernakulam District and as to the callous inaction in extending relief to the eligible candidates who got a placement in Annexure A1 rank list published by the Public Service Commission, to the post in question.
4. It is seen that, on completing the process of selection by the PSC, Annexure A1 rank list was published for the above post which was brought into force with effect from 28.12.2011. The ranked list expired on 29.6.2016. In the meanwhile, because of the grievance as mentioned above in non-reporting the vacancies, the applicants approached the Tribunal as per the above O.A, whereupon an interim order was passed directing the requisitioning authorities to report 7 vacancies on a provisional basis. It was accordingly, that the third respondent reported seven vacancies to the PSC for direct recruitment as per the communications dated 13.6.2016 and 25.6.2016.
5. When the matter came up for final consideration, O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 3 the facts and figures were noted by the Tribunal and since the factum of existence of vacancies was asserted from the part of the Government with reference to the report of the vacancies as per proceedings dated 15.6.2016 and 25.6.2016, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application directing the 4th respondent/PSC to issue advice memos against the above 7 vacancies from Annexure A1 rank list within the time as stipulated therein. The PSC felt aggrieved who points out that, because of the non-implementation of the said verdict, Contempt of Court proceedings have been initiated by one of the beneficiaries/applicants in O.A.No.382/2015 as evident from Ext.P6.
6. The case projected by the PSC is that, when the proceedings were finalised as per Ext.P4, existence of the earlier verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1350/2016 vide Ext.P5 could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The said verdict shows that the O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 4 applicant therein was also a contestant for the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Ernakulam District, however, in respect of the backlog (partially deaf and orthopeadically challenged) vacancies notified by virtue of subsequent A1 notification therein dated 30.4.2012, ie; after coming into operation of the rank list in respect of the posts concerned in O.A.No.382 of 2015. As a matter of fact, the notification produced in O.A.No.1350/2016 involved 'two vacancies' and the applicant therein was ranked at Serial No.3. The vacancies earmarked therein were in respect of 3% backlog vacancies of physically challenged persons. Initially appointment was given to rank list Nos. 1 and 2, but subsequently it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, that the person at rank No.2 was already relieved from the job, pursuant to obtaining a better job and since the said vacancy was thrown open, a claim was put forth by the applicant in O.A.No.1350/2016. It is stated that the Tribunal has noted in the opening O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 5 paragraph of Ext.P5 that the said vacancy was already reported to the third respondent, that the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Ernakulam, by the 4th respondent/Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam and that the applicant being the sole claimant eligible for appointment, she had sought for appropriate directions as sought for in the said OA.
7. The grievance projected by the applicant was that despite the contentions of the applicant, the first respondent/PSC was intending to fill up the said post from the rank list of HSAs of Physical Science (General), published on 28.12.2011 ie; the rank list which forms subject matter of O.A.No.382/2015. As observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5, an interim order was passed on 22.6.2017 in the following manner.
"Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC will get instructions. In the meanwhile there will be a direction to the Commission not to advise candidates from the rank list (general) for H.S.A. Physical Science for a period of two weeks."
O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 6
8. After hearing both the sides including the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the Tribunal adverted to the factual position with regard to the rank of the applicant, the category against which the appointment was sought for and such other particulars and it was accordingly, that the OA was disposed of, directing the PSC to consider and advice the applicant therein, in accordance with law, within a span of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
9. The fact remains that, though O.A.No.382/2015 was the first case, the subsequent case ie; O.A.No.1350/2016 came to be decided and finalised earlier, as per Ext.P5 dated 27.7.2016; whereas O.A.No.382/2015 came to be disposed of as per Ext.P4 only later on 7.10.2016. There is also no dispute to the fact that no matter is pending before this Court or elsewhere as to the direction given by the Tribunal in O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 7 Ext.P5 and it has to be presumed that the said matter has become final.
10. The only challenge raised in the present writ petition is against Ext.P4. There is no dispute that the Tribunal had passed an interim order, directing the requisitioning authorities to provisionally report 7 vacancies, however making it clear that advice would made subject to further orders. Subsequently, the existence of 7 vacancies was asserted from the part of the Government with reference to the communications dated 13.6.2016 and 25.6.2016 addressed to the PSC, which made the Tribunal to pass Ext.P4 verdict, giving a specific direction to issue advice memos in respect of the 7 vacancies (already reported pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal) from Annexure A1 rank list. ' 11. No materials are produced either before the Tribunal or before this Court as to whether the vacancies which were sought to be filled up as per the requisition O.P(KAT)No.222 of 2017 8 made by Department were inclusive of the two backlog vacancies as well. The verdict passed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 is with reference to the specific facts and figures as pleaded and produced before the Tribunal and as such, no tenable ground is raised to interfere with the said direction.
12. We find that the Original Petition is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed.
However, taking note of the fact that the time given by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 is already over, we grant a further period of 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this verdict to give effect to Ext.P4.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE SHIRCY.V JUDGE smm