Kerala Public Service Commission vs Nisha K on 17 May, 2022

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kerala Public Service Commission vs Nisha K on 17 May, 2022

The common final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on 24.08.2020 in the aforementioned 28 original applications, is the subject matter of challenge in these original petitions, filed at the instance of the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'PSC' for short) and its officers, who were arrayed as respondents in the original application, by invoking the remedy conferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The applicants in the aforementioned 28 original applications are O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 2 candidates who have applied for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) (Malayalam medium) in Government schools (Category No.387/2014) in 7 out of the 14 districts in the State of Kerala. The 7 districts involved in these cases are (i) Kannur

(ii) Kasargod (iii) Kollam (iv) Malappuram (v) Kozhikode (vi) Thrissur and (vii) Palakkad. The common selection notification dated 10.09.2014 was issued by the PSC (Category No.387/2014) for selection to the post of LPSA (Malayalam medium) in Government schools in all the 14 districts in the State of Kerala and the last date for submission of applications in that regard was upto 15.10.2014. The challenge made in these original applications is regarding the reasonableness or otherwise of the size of the short list published by the PSC in the selection process pertaining to the abovesaid 7 districts. It appears that, in these proceedings, no challenge has been made as against a similar action taken by the PSC for finalisation of short lists in the other 7 districts.

2. The Tribunal has referred to the brief factual aspects of the case, like the number of vacancies reported by the appointing authority to the PSC, prior to the decision taken by the PSC, the size of the select list, various vacancies reported thereafter, details of the candidates included in the short list, pertaining to the 7 districts, with reference to O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 3 the service details of such candidates included in the main list thereof and the supplementary list thereof, etc., as well as the cited decisions, including the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB) = 2009 (2) KHC 10 = ILR 2009 (2) Ker. 751], Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417] Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLT 854], State of Punjab & Others v. Manjit Singh & Others [AIR 2003 SC 4580]. Thereafter, the Tribunal has concluded that the cut off marks was not a criteria followed by the PSC for deciding the number of candidates to be included in the short list and the list. However, the Tribunal has noted in para 61 thereof that in the norms followed by the PSC, as per PSC Circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003, one of the important criteria is that, the number of vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the list should also be assessed. That, from the pleadings and materials on records, it appears that such an assessment has not been made by the PSC and that therefore, there will be a direction to the PSC to pass appropriate orders regarding the expansion of the list, after considering the factual aspects noted about each of the 7 districts, orders in that regard shall be passed in 2 months and additional eligible candidates will be advised for appointment based on the order to be passed, within 2 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 4 months thereafter, etc. It is the abovesaid common verdict, rendered by the Tribunal in these original applications, that is under challenge in these original petitions, filed at the behest of the PSC and its officers.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the various learned Advocates appearing for the original applicants, who had succeeded before the Tribunal and who have been arrayed as contesting respondents in these original petitions and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

4. The district wise details of these 28 cases would be as follows:-

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 (arising out of O.A. (Ekm) No.864/2019) pertain to Kannur district. O.P.(KAT) No.406/2020 (arising out of O.A. (Ekm) No.1367/2018) pertain to Kasargod district. 4 cases, viz., O.P.(KAT) Nos.390, 391, 393 & 398/2020 (arising out of O.A. (Ekm) No.2024/2019, O.A.(Ekm) No.582/2020, O.A.(Ekm) No.20/2020 & 75 of 2020 respectively) pertain to Kollam district. 13 matters viz., O.P.(KAT) Nos.319, 322, 324, 327, 328, 333, 335, 337, 351, 378, 395, 402, 423 of 2020 (arising out of O.A.(Ekm) Nos.1935/2018, 39/2020, 631/2019, 1007/2019, 1732/2019, 1903/2018, 986/2019, 985/2019, 1008/2019, 1087/2018, 963/2019 & O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 5 878/2019, 962/2019, are in relation to Malappuram district, whereas 4 cases viz., O.P.(KAT) Nos.345, 349, 385 & 405/2020 (arising out of O.P.(KAT) Nos.848/2019, 781/2019, 1026/2019 and O.A.(Ekm) No.1563/2018 respectively) are in relation to Kozhikode district. 3 matters viz., O.P.(KAT) Nos.343, 356, 411/2020 (arising out of O.A. (Ekm) Nos.129/2019, 2363/2018 & 87/2020) are matters in relation to Thrissur district. The remaining 2 cases viz., O.P.(KAT) Nos.362 & 387/2020 (arising out of O.A. Nos.34/2020, 2212/2019, respectively) are in relation to Palakkad district.

5. The factual details regarding the number of vacancies reported by the appointing authority to the PSC prior to the decision taken by the PSC fixing the size of the short lists in these cases, the details of the number of candidates included in the main list/supplementary list of such short lists, the number of vacancies reported by the appointing authority to the PSC for each of the 7 districts at subsequent points of time, the details of the finalisation of the list in each of these cases, the facts and figures relating to the number of candidates included in the main list and supplementary list of such list, vacancies reported during the operation period of the list, the period during which the list has been operated for advice, the details of the fresh selection notification issued by the PSC relating to O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 6 the very same posts, etc., pertaining to 7 different districts are not available in a coherent manner as it has been filed in different cases.

Accordingly, we have directed the PSC to file such a comprehensive affidavit, in these cases, giving separately the material particulars of the factual details pertaining to each of the 7 districts. Accordingly, the PSC has filed an affidavit dated 26.03.2022 in O.P.(KAT) No.406/2020, which has been adopted by them in all these cases.

6. Now, it may be pertinent to refer to the factual details pertaining to each of the above 7 districts concerned in these batch cases, as made out in the tabular columns given in the said affidavit dated 26.03.2022, filed by the PSC. The tabular column details given in the above affidavit in regard to Kannur District is as follows:-

(I) Kannur District:

1. Details of previous ranked list a The period of operation of the 19.04.2012 to 19.10.2016 previous ranked list (4 ½ years) b Total number of advises made from 136 the previous ranked list c The number of advises per year made 30 from the previous ranked list

2. Details of present selection notification a. Date of publication of the present 10.09.2014 selection notification b. Category Number of the post 387/2014 c. Number of vacancies notified as Not estimated O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 7 shown in the selection notification d. Last date fixed for receipt of 15.10.2014 application

3. Total number of applications received 2992 for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who had 2055 appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list

7. Number of vacancies reported and Nil pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of the 24.01.2018 short list 9. The total number of vacancies 74 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list

10. Total number of candidates included 655 in the short list

11. Total number of candidates included Total 655 in the main list and supplementary list of the short list Main list 300 Supplementary list 336 DA 19

12. Marks in the written examination 34.67 secured by the last ranking candidates in the main list.

13. Date of publication of the present 28.12.2018 rank list 14. Total number of candidates in the 610 rank list, with separate figures for Main list 293 Main list and Supplementary list. Supplementary list 317 15. Total number of vacancies reported 160 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of Ranked list not exhausted.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 8

the last ranking candidates in the Last advice was on main list of the rank list. 04.01.2022. Rank upto 242 under OC turn get advised from the Main list. 36 candidates are remaining in the main list

17. Total number of candidates advised 420 from the present ranked list and Advice per year 140 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.

18. Number of vacancies pending and remaining Un-utilized for advice as Nil on the date on which the turn of advice of the last ranking candidates (36 candidates are remaining in the main list of the rank list had in the main list) arisen.

19. The date of expiry of the three year 27.12.2021 period from the date of finalization of the rank list.

20. Number of vacancies pending and Nil remaining unadvised with the PSC as on the expiry of the three year period from the finalization of the ranked list.

21. Date of issuance of the fresh selection 31.12.2019 notification for the post of LPSA.

22. Present state of the Fresh selection 24/11/2020 (written test) process and date on which the written Interview completed on test has been conducted, etc. 17.03.2022.

7. Similarly, the details pertaining to the other 6 districts is given in the tabular columns of the above said affidavit of the PSC are also extracted hereunder:-

(II) Kasargod District:

1. Details of previous ranked list a The period of operation of the 16.04.2012 to 16..10.2016 previous ranked list (4 ½ years) b Total number of advises made from 149 the previous ranked list O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 9 c The number of advises per year made 33 from the previous ranked list

2. Details of present selection notification a. Date of publication of the present 10.09.2014 selection notification b. Category Number of the post 387/2014 c. Number of vacancies notified as Not estimated shown in the selection notification d. Last date fixed for receipt of 15.10.2014 application 1929

3. Total number of applications received for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who had 1453 appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list 7. Number of vacancies reported and 23 pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of the 31.01.2018 short list 9. The total number of vacancies 179 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list

10. Total number of candidates included 721 in the short list [720 +1DA HI candidate included as per addendum notification published on 19.09.2019]

11. Total number of candidates included 721 in the main list and supplementary (M/L-299, S/L 410 DA 12 list of the short list

12. Marks in the written examination 32.67 secured by the last ranking O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 10 candidates in the main list.

13. Date of publication of the present 28.12.2018 rank list

14. Total number of candidates in the 696 rank list, with separate figures for (M/L-294, S/L-391, DA-11) Main list and Supplementary list.

15. Total number of vacancies reported 359 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of 10.02.2020 the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list.

17. Total number of candidates advised Total-542 from the present ranked list and Advise per year-465 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.

18. Number of vacancies pending and 25 remaining Un-utilized for advice as on the date on which the turn of advice of the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list had arisen.

19. The date of expiry of the three year 28.12.2021 period from the date of finalization of the rank list.

20. Number of vacancies pending and 136+16 AV due on 2022 remaining unadvised with the PSC as on the expiry of the three year period from the finalization of the ranked list.

21. Date of issuance of the fresh selection 31.12.2019 notification for the post of LPSA.

22. Present state of the Fresh selection 24/11/2020 (written test) process and date on which the Interview for the post is being written test has been conducted, etc. conducted. (III) Kollam District

1. Details of previous ranked list a The period of operation of the 19.03.2012 to previous ranked list 18.09.2016 (4 ½ year) b Total number of advises made from 409 the previous ranked list O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 11 c The number of advises per year made 91 from the previous ranked list

2. Details of present selection notification a. Date of publication of the present 10.09.2014 selection notification b. Category Number of the post 387/2014 c. Number of vacancies notified as Not estimated shown in the selection notification d. Last date fixed for receipt of 15.10.2014 application

3. Total number of applications 3837 received for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who had 2763 appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list 7. Number of vacancies reported and 33 pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of the 30.12.2017 short list 9. The total number of vacancies 33 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list

10. Total number of candidates included 1295 in the short list

11. Total number of candidates included Total 1295 in the main list and supplementary M/L 410, S/L 871, DA 14 list of the short list

12. Marks in the written examination 44.67 secured by the last ranking candidates in the main list.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 12

13. Date of publication of the present 28.12.2018 rank list

14. Total number of candidates in the 1222 rank list, with separate figures for (M/L-404, S/L-804, DA-14) Main list and Supplementary list.

15. Total number of vacancies reported 200 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of 26.08.2021 the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list.

17. Total number of candidates advised Total-495 from the present ranked list and Advise per year-186 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.

18. Number of vacancies pending and 37 remaining Un-utilized for advice as on the date on which the turn of advice of the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list had arisen.

19. The date of expiry of the three year 27.12.2021 period from the date of finalization of the rank list.

20. Number of vacancies pending and 156 remaining unadvised with the PSC as on the expiry of the three year period from the finalization of the ranked list.

21. Date of issuance of the fresh selection 31.12.2019 notification for the post of LPSA.

22. Present state of the Fresh selection 24/11/2020 (written test) process and date on which the Interview for the post is being written test has been conducted, etc. conducted. (IV) Malappuram District

1. Details of previous ranked list a The period of operation of the 21.02.2012 to 20.08.2016 previous ranked list (4 ½ years) b Total number of advises made from 991 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 13 the previous ranked list c The number of advises per year 220 made from the previous ranked list

3. Total number of applications 13394 received for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who had 9584 appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list 7. Number of vacancies reported and 186 pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of the 23.01.2018 short list 9. The total number of vacancies 191 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list

10. Total number of candidates included 3461 in the short list

11. Total number of candidates included Total 3461 in the main list and supplementary M/L 1001, S/L 2460 list of the short list

12. Marks in the written examination 42.67 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 14 secured by the last ranking candidates in the main list.

13. Date of publication of the present 28.12.2018 rank list

14. Total number of candidates in the Total 3292 rank list, with separate figures for M/L 983, S/L 2309 Main list and Supplementary list.

15. Total number of vacancies reported 908 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of Turn arose on 02.12.2019 the last ranking candidates in the Actual advise on 23.01.2021 main list of the rank list.

17. Total number of candidates advised Total 1181 from the present ranked list and Advise per year 1181 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.

18. Number of vacancies pending and 397 remaining Un-utilized for advice as on the date on which the turn of advice of the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list had arisen.

19. The date of expiry of the three year 28.12.2021 period from the date of finalization of the rank list.

20. Number of vacancies pending and 615 remaining unadvised with the PSC as on the expiry of the three year period from the finalization of the ranked list.

21. Date of issuance of the fresh 31.12.2019 selection notification for the post of LPSA.

22. Present state of the Fresh selection 24/11/2020 (written test) process and date on which the Interview is progressing. written test has been conducted, etc. (V) Kozhikode District

1. Details of previous ranked list a The period of operation of the 18.11.2011 to 17.05.2016 previous ranked list (4 ½ years) b Total number of advises made from 179 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 15 the previous ranked list c The number of advises per year 40 made from the previous ranked list

3. Total number of applications 4552 received for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who had 3103 appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list 7. Number of vacancies reported and 21 pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of the 15.02.2018 short list 9. The total number of vacancies 76 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list

10. Total number of candidates included 745 in the short list

11. Total number of candidates included Total 745 in the main list and supplementary M/L - 299, S/L -438, DA 8 list of the short list

12. Marks in the written examination 37.33 secured by the last ranking O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 16 candidates in the main list.

13. Date of publication of the present 28.12.2018 rank list

14. Total number of candidates in the Total 719 rank list, with separate figures for M/L-295, S/L 416, DA 8 Main list and Supplementary list.

15. Total number of vacancies reported 326 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of Turn arose on 16.11.2019 the last ranking candidates in the actual advise 24.03.2021 main list of the rank list.

17. Total number of candidates advised Total 385 from the present ranked list and Advise per year 385 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.

18. Number of vacancies pending and 71 remaining Un-utilized for advice as on the date on which the turn of advice of the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list had arisen.

19. The date of expiry of the three year 27.12.2021 period from the date of finalization of the rank list.

20. Number of vacancies pending and 140 remaining unadvised with the PSC as on the expiry of the three year period from the finalization of the ranked list.

21. Date of issuance of the fresh selection 31.12.2019 notification for the post of LPSA.

22. Present state of the Fresh selection 24/11/2020 (written test) process and date on which the Interview completed on written test has been conducted, etc. 24.03.2022. (VI) Thrissur District

1. Details of previous ranked list a The period of operation of the 12.12.2011 to 13.06.2016 previous ranked list (4 ½ year) O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 17 b Total number of advises made from 31 the previous ranked list c The number of advises per year 7 made from the previous ranked list

3. Total number of applications 2863 received for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who had 1702 appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list

7. Number of vacancies reported and 18 pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of the 12.03.2018 short list 9. The total number of vacancies 18 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list

10. Total number of candidates 250 included in the short list

11. Total number of candidates 250 included in the main list and (M/L-150, S/L 94 DA 6 supplementary list of the short list O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 18

12. Marks in the written examination 38.33 secured by the last ranking candidates in the main list.

13. Date of publication of the present 06.09.2018 rank list

14. Total number of candidates in the Total 240 rank list, with separate figures for M/L-148, S/L 87, DA 5 Main list and Supplementary list.

15. Total number of vacancies reported 118 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of 27.02.2021 the last ranking candidates in the (100 vacancies reported on main list of the rank list. 16.08.2019 were kept in abeyance as per the interim stay in advising the last candidate in the Main list and this last candidate was advised on 27.03.2021 against the vacancies reported on 16.08.2019)

17. Total number of candidates advised Total-260 from the present ranked list and Advise per year-260 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.


         18.   Number of vacancies pending and          128
               remaining Un-utilized for advice as
               on the date on which the turn of
               advice of       the last   ranking
               candidates in the main list of the
               rank list had arisen.

         19.   The date of expiry of the three year     05.09.2021
               period from the date of finalization
               of the rank list.

         20.   Number of vacancies pending and          168
               remaining unadvised with the PSC
               as on the expiry of the three year
               period from the finalization of the
               ranked list.

         21.   Date of issuance of the fresh            31.12.2019
               selection notification for the post of
               LPSA.

         22.   Present state of the Fresh selection     24/11/2020 (written test)
               process and date on which the            Interview for the post is being
               written test has been conducted, etc.    conducted.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases              19


(VII) Palakkad District

          1. Details of previous ranked list

          a    The period of operation of the         26.04.2012 to 26.10.2016
               previous ranked list                   (4 ½ years)

          b    Total number of advises made from      279
               the previous ranked list

          c    The number of advises per year         62
               made from the previous ranked list

3. Total number of applications 4083 received for the present selection process

4. Total number of applicants who 2710 had appeared in the OMR written examination

5. Date of conduct of the OMR written 21.01.2017 examination 6 Date on which the PSC had taken 03.07.2017 decision about the size of the short list

7. Number of vacancies reported and 36 fresh pending with the PSC as on the date on which the PSC has taken decision regarding the size of the short list

8. Date of the formal publication of 14.02.2018 the short list 9. The total number of vacancies 173 reported and pending in the PSC as on the date of the formal publication of short list O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 20

10. Total number of candidates 1020 included in the short list

11. Total number of candidates Total 1020 included in the main list and M/L 405, S/L 615, supplementary list of the short list

12. Marks in the written examination 37 secured by the last ranking candidates in the main list.

13. Date of publication of the present 28.12.2018 rank list

14. Total number of candidates in the Total 961 rank list, with separate figures for (M/L-396, S/L-565) Main list and Supplementary list.

15. Total number of vacancies reported 194 and pending with the PSC as on the date of publication of the ranked list.

16. Date on which the turn of advise of 25.09.2021 the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list.

17. Total number of candidates advised Total-533 from the present ranked list and Advise per year-194 number of advises per year made from the present ranked list.

18. Number of vacancies pending and 16 remaining Un-utilized for advice as on the date on which the turn of advice of the last ranking candidates in the main list of the rank list had arisen.

19. The date of expiry of the three year 27.12.2021, but ranked list period from the date of finalization exhausted on 25.09.2021 of the rank list.

20. Number of vacancies pending and 16 remaining unadvised with the PSC as on the expiry of the three year period from the finalization of the ranked list.

21. Date of issuance of the fresh 31.12.2019 selection notification for the post of LPSA.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 21

22. Present state of the Fresh selection 24/11/2020 (written test) process and date on which the Interview completed on written test has been conducted, 24.03.2022. etc.

8. During the course of hearing the cases, none of the parties have made any serious disputes regarding the abovesaid material particulars in each of the 7 districts, except a few details in a few districts and those aspects will be dealt with later.

9. The main contentions urged by the original applicants are as follows: "that the PSC has taken the decision regarding the size of the short list to be formulated in all these districts on 03.07.2017. That, it is a matter of common knowledge that, as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'KER' for short) framed under the Kerala Education Act, the staff fixation process, regarding the strength of teaching staff of schools, is to be finalised with effect from 15th of July of the academic year concerned and that the said norm is applicable in the matter of staff fixation of Government schools as well. That the State Government authorities have been following the teacher-student ratio as 1:45, for determining the staff strength (number of teaching staff) required for these schools, and those norms have been on the basis of the various notifications, orders and norms issued in terms of the KER. Further, O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 22 that the central enactment concerned i.e., "the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act 35 of 2009) (hereinafter referred to as 'RTE Act' for short), has been framed by the Parliament. That, Sec.25(1) of the RTE Act mandates that within 3 years of the date of commencement of the Act, the said Central Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR), as specified in the Schedule thereto, is maintained in each school. That, as per those norms the teacher student ratio to be observed is 1:30 and not 1:45, as was followed by the State Government. This Court, in the decision in Kerala Aided Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools, Kollam v. State of Kerala & Another [2016 KHC 118 = ILR 2016 (1) Ker 590], as per the judgment rendered on 17.12.2015 held that the provisions of the KER, with respect to 1:45 ratio, would be rendered void on the RTE Act coming into force, wherein this Court has referred to an earlier verdict of this Court wherein it has been found that the changes brought out by the Government as per G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011, to set right the anomalies by postulating a package, was insufficient and found them to be beyond the scope and powers conferred on the executive Government and that it was repugnant to the central RTE Act, which is a Central legislation. The subsequent O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 23 developments in the matter were considered by this Court in the aforecited decision in Kerala Aided Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools, Kollam v. State of Kerala & Another [2016 KHC 118], and after considering the effect of the doctrine of repugnancy enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of India and after considering the repugnancy of the norms, as per the central RTE Act vis-a-vis the norms as per the State KER, held that the later central enactment, as per the RTE Act, would render void the Pupil-Teacher ratio provided by the State as per the KER norms and that harmonisation between the two ratios is not possible and that the State would have to provide the Pupil-Teacher Ratio as provided in the central RTE Act and that the financial implication cannot be a consideration at all in interpreting the effect of the central legislation on the state norms.

10. That, in pursuance of the abovesaid declaration of law in the above writ litigative proceedings, the State Government has, later, issued G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.01.2016 for compliance of the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 17.12.2015 in W.P. (C) No.19008/2015 and connected cases (reported in the aforecited decision in 2016 KHC 118). Further that, the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) has issued Circular No.H2/34017/2017/DPI dated O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 24 20.06.2017 for working out the modalities for implementing the central RTE norms of PTR, as this Court has also held in the aforecited reported decision that the prescription in Sl. No.1(a) of the schedule appended to Secs.19 & 25 of the Central RTE Act is that if the students admitted in classes 1-5 is upto 60 students, then there shall be 2 teachers. Since the stipulation prescribed is 'upto 60', the existence of a standard in a Lower Primary school would require 2 teachers to be posted and only on the number of admitted students exceeding 60, the ratio would be 1:30 and that the essential requirement is that for 30-35 students, in the respective elementary units, in each of the class/divisions there should be atleast one teacher, etc. (copies of the abovesaid G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.01.2016 and Circular No.H2/3017/2017/DPI dated 20.06.2016 are made available at page Nos.739 to 744 and page Nos.1386 to 1392 of the Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules, 2017 edition Edited by Sri.V.A.Mohamed, Advocate).

11. Further, it is also pointed out by the applicants that the Government had also later issued G.O.(P) No.134/2016/G.Edn. dated 05.06.2016 wherein it has been interalia ordered in para No.4 thereof that the staff fixation done for the academic year 2015-16 will be applicable for the academic year 2016-17 as well and that thus no O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 25 independent staff fixation proceedings have been initiated in any of the schools for the Academic year 2016-17 (copy of the abovesaid G.O.(P) No.134/2016/G.Edn. has been produced as Ext.R32(d) along with the affidavit dated 25.03.2022, filed by contesting respondents No.32-60 in OP (KAT) No.319/2020-see pages 130 to 131 of the said affidavit). Hence, it is contended by the applicants that, as per the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 17.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No.19008/2013 & connected cases [2016 KHC 118] as well as the norms fixed in the abovesaid G.O.(P) dated 29.01.2016 and the DPI Circular dated 20.06.2016, the central RTE norms for Pupil-Teacher Ratio had to be mandatorily observed in all schools, including Government schools. That the Government issued the abovesaid G.O. (P) dated 05.06.2016 interalia ordering that staff fixation for the academic year 2016-2017 need not be done separately and the staff fixation for the previous academic year 2015-2016 is to be made applicable for the academic year 2016-2017 in the schools. Further that, when the applicants have referred to these aspects to buttress their contention that, when the PSC had taken the decision on 03.07.2017, regarding the short list of all the districts for the abovesaid selection process to the post of LPSA, it was well known to all concerned, including the PSC, that the more rigorous central RTE O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 26 norms for Pupil-Teacher Ratio had to be necessarily implemented by the State authorities for staff fixation in all Government and aided schools, in lieu of the PTR of 1:45 prescribed as per the State KER norms. Further that, in view of the pending litigation, there was stalemate for the staff fixation process upto the academic year 2016- 2017 and that the next academic year 2017-2018 had commenced from 01.06.2017 onwards and that going by the norms, the staff fixation process in all schools had to be made effective by 15 th July of 2017 as far as the academic year 2017-2018 is concerned. That, therefore it was a matter very much within the knowledge of the PSC that the frozen stage of staff fixation process had to be drastically changed for the academic year 2017-2018, which would result in large number of vacancies, going by the rigorous central RTE norms relating to PTR. In that regard, it is argued by the learned Advocates appearing for the various original applicants concerned that, even going by the case of the PSC, they have framed norms and parameters for deciding about the size of the short list of candidates who have cleared the written examination and who have to be called for the interview, as per PSC Circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003, as per which the number of candidates to be included in the short list and ranked list should not be decided mechanically and the Commission will have to decide the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 27 number to be included in each case, considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, the nature of the posts and chances of occurrence of vacancies, etc. That, in the instant case, the number of candidates advised in the previous selection process, may have been comparatively low, on account of the lesser number of vacancies reported due to the less rigorous PTR norms then stipulated by the State KER norms and though the number of vacancies actually reported to the PSC by the appointing authority in the post of LPSA, prior to the decision taken by them on 03.07.2017 for the size of the select list may have been very low, the PSC was bound to keep in mind that huge number of vacancies would have arisen thereafter because of the implementation of the new rigorous central RTE PTR norms, which was then impending. That the PSC had merely taken only the number of vacancies that were actually reported prior to 03.07.2017, on the date on which the PSC had taken the decision on the size of the short list and that the facts and figures made available by the applicants on the basis of the Right To Information (RTI) proceedings as well as even those aspects admitted by the PSC and the Government would show that a large number of vacancies were reported after 03.07.2017 by the appointing authority to the PSC and during the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 28 operative period of the ranked list. Further that, if a reasonable computation had been made on the number of vacancies that are likely to arise during the operation period of 3 years of the ranked list, then a larger number of candidates could have been included in the main list of the short list and that candidates, like the present applicants, who happened to be included only in the supplementary list of the abovesaid short list, would have found their place in the main list of the short list. That, on this basis the applicants were later included only in the supplementary list of the ranked list, finalised in pursuance of the interview of the candidates included in the short list and that if a larger number of candidates had been thus included in the main list of the short list, candidates, like the applicants would also have found their place in the main list of the consequential ranked list. That, the size of the main list of the short list was unreasonably low, in contravention of the abovesaid norms of the PSC regarding the size of the short list. Further that, the candidates included in the supplementary list of the ranked list, would be considered for advice and appointment only as against the respective community reserved turns and not as against the open competition turns, as the supplementary list is only a buffer, for taking care of those scenarios wherein sufficient reserved community candidates may not find their O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 29 place in the main list of the ranked list. Further that, it is well settled, as per the legal position, that the supplementary list has no independent existence apart from the main list of the ranked list and as and when the last ranking candidate in the main list of the ranked list is advised for appointment, the ranked list would lapse and become exhausted and thereafter, candidates included in the supplementary list cannot be considered for advise. Further, no candidate included in the supplementary list could be independently considered for advice after the exhaustion of the main list, on the advice of the last ranking candidate in the main list, and that in many of these cases, the size of the main list of the ranked list was also quite small in number and compared to the vacancies they could have reasonably estimated and vacancies that were, later actually reported, the ranked list could have been operated for a maximum period of 3 years, from the date of finalisation, going by the prescription in Rule 39 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Rules of Procedure), in view of the fact that the number of candidates included in the main list of the ranked list was unreasonably low and the last ranking candidate in the main list of the ranked list had to be advised and the ranked list became inoperative thereafter, even much before the expiry of the maximum period of 3 years from the date of finalisation.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 30

12. Other contentions have also been raised by the applicants that as per the dictum laid down in the decision in Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLT 854], rendered after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Manjit Singh & Others [AIR 2003 (SC) 4580], etc. that, as per the Rules of Procedure and as per the statutory Rules of Recruitment, the PSC cannot prescribe a minimum cut off mark for preparation of short list and ranked list and that unless such prescription of minimum marks is enabled by the statutory Rules of Recruitment or it is explicitly so empowered in the selection process, the PSC does not have the power to prescribe any minimum cut off marks for the inclusion of candidates in the short list and the ranked list. Further that, the PSC has included candidates in the main list of the short list based on the minimum cut off marks stipulated by them differently for different districts and that the said action of the PSC is illegal and ultravires and beyond their power and competence and that therefore the decision making process, relating to the size of the main list of the short list in these cases, is illegal and ultravires.

13. It is also urged by the applicants that, since the maximum validity period of the ranked list, in terms of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, is 3 years, the PSC was O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 31 obliged to prepare a short list, taking into account the vacancies that are likely to arise within the next 3 year period, to effectuate the very objective of the selection process to recruit teachers to Government Lower Primary Schools and that going by the said parameters, the number of candidates included by the PSC in the main list of the short list of various districts concerned is unreasonably low and the matter would require interdiction.

14. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the PSC would contend that the Tribunal has correctly found, in para 59 of the impugned verdict, that the PSC has not fixed any cut off marks as a criteria for deciding the number of candidates to be included in the short list of the ranked list. In that regard, it is also pointed out that, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB)], more particularly in paras 38 & 39 thereof, the PSC follows their norms as per the PSC circular No.30/2003 dated 01.02.2013 and that para No.2 of the said circular explains the methodology for arriving at the number of candidates in the short list and that the size of the short list is thus decided and that the so called cut off marks, pointed out by the applicants, is nothing but the marks in the written examination secured by the last ranking candidate in the main list of the short list O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 32 and that, as held by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case (supra), the said procedure is not one of having a minimum cut off marks for deciding the size of the short list but that the size of the short list is decided by the PSC, as per the abovesaid norms and that the so called cut off marks, as understood by the original applicants is only the marks in the written examination of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the short list. That, in the instant case also, the pleadings and materials would clearly indicate the same and that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the PSC has not fixed any minimum cut off marks for deciding the size of the short list and that precisely, it is for this reason that the so called cut off marks pointed out by the applicants for various districts are different. That this is so because the size of the short list of the various districts is decided independently and therefore the marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the short list would vary for each of the districts concerned, depending upon the number of candidates included in the main list of the short list for each of the districts concerned. Hence, the PSC would strongly contend that the contentions raised by the petitioners, regarding the so called illegality in the preparation of the size of the short list, on the basis of the alleged minimum cut off marks, etc, is absolutely untenable, etc. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 33

15. Further, it is contended on behalf of the PSC that the size of the short list has been decided by the PSC in accordance with the norms and parameters laid down in the PSC Circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003 and para 1 thereof and the same has clearly stipulated that the previous norms as per the PSC circular No.17/1987 dated 04.07.1987 has been modified and altered and that the number of candidates to be included in the short list and the ranked list should not be decided mechanically and the PSC will decide the number of candidates to be included in each case, considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates from the previous list, the nature of the post and chance of occurrence of vacancies, etc. Further that, whether the commission has ordered to include particular number of candidates, who secured the top marks in the ranked list and if this number cannot be exactly obtained on the basis of the marks, and if the next lower range is taken, it would exceed this number, then the nearest number in the higher range alone shall be considered. For example, if the PSC has ordered to include the top 100 candidates in the main list and while preparing the list, there are only 95 candidates in a particular range of marks, the range is to be lowered in order to reach 100 candidates but if, on lowering the range, the number reaches to 110 or above 100, then the nearest number, i.e., 95 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 34 is to be reckoned as the number of candidates to be included in the main list etc., as stipulated in para No.2 of the abovesaid circular dated 01.12.2003. In that regard, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the PSC that the earlier norms, as per the PSC circular No.17/1987 dated 04.07.1987, stipulating that the short list of the ranked list shall contain 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the pendency of the previous ranked list, the same was then decided to satisfy the requirement for a period of 3 years, which is the maximum period of the ranked list. Further that, the said previous norms, issued on 04.07.1987, has been altered and modified as per the subsequent circular dated 01.12.2003 and there is no question of preparing any shortlist or ranked list, taking into account the further purpose of filling up of all vacancies that are likely to arise for the maximum 3 year period of the ranked list, since, by virtue of modernisation of facilities by computerisation, etc. and streamlining of work, it is now possible for the commission to finalise selection within short periods. Therefore, further that, it has been conclusively held by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case (supra) that candidates cannot compel the PSC to prepare short list and ranked list, taking into account all vacancies that are likely to arise during the maximum currency period of 3 years of the ranked list and that the assured life O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 35 span of the ranked list is only one year, after which a new ranked list could be brought into force and that, it is in a case where no such fresh ranked list is finalised, in the meanwhile, that the list could be operated for a maximum period of 3 years from the date of finalisation. Further that, taking into account the rights and interests of candidates, who have acquired qualifications subsequently and who are waiting in queue for public employment, there is no question of compelling the PSC to prepare short list and ranked list, taking into account the vacancies for all 3 years in question and that they need to prepare the short list and ranked list taking into account the parameters and the requirements for operation of the list, etc. In that regard, it is urged on behalf of the PSC that the facts and circumstances and figures in these cases as given above, would clearly indicate that the KSPC has taken into account the various parameters and norms as per circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003 and the details of the number of candidates advised from the previous list, including the number of advises of candidates made per year from the previous ranked list, the number of vacancies actually reported by the appointing authority to the PSC before they had taken the decision regarding the size of the short list on 03.07.2017. The PSC has also taken into account the chances of occurrence of vacancy, taking into account the nature of the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 36 present post and that the applicants have not shown any valid grounds for judicial review, taking into account the legal dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case (supra) and a series of decisions. In that regard, it is argued that no proper grounds have been stated by the Tribunal for interfering in the matter, even after having found out that the PSC has not enforced any minimum cut off marks in the preparation of the shortlist. The only ground stated by the Tribunal for interference is the one in para 61 on page 42 of the impugned common final order, by blandly stating that the PSC has not made an assessment of the number of vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the ranked list. Further that, a reading of para 61 of the impugned verdict would clearly disclose that the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise as if all the vacancies likely to arise during the maximum currency period of 3 years of ranked list should have been taken into account, which is plainly against the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas' case (supra). Further that, it is also against the dictum laid down by the 4 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Kerala [(1985) 4 SCC 417], wherein it has been conclusively and categorically held that the number of candidates to be included in the shortlist for inviting applicants for the interview, should not exceed twice or, in the highest, O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 37 thrice the number of vacancies sought to be filled up and that the said limit is the outer limit and the same denotes the outer limit of the size of short list and the same cannot amount to the minimum size of the shortlist.

16. It is also submitted by the PSC that, merely because a large number of vacancies have been subsequently reported by the appointing authority, it does not mean that the estimation of the chances of occurrence of vacancies, effected in the decision making process of the PSC, is hit by illegality or unreasonableness and that the applicants also do not have any case as to whether the staff fixation orders of Government schools, were indeed finalised by the departmental authorities by 15th July 2017, or immediately thereafter and further that, the applicants cannot contend that the PSC should not have taken a decision regarding the size of the shortlist on 03.07.2017, instead of postponing it until the staff fixation process for 2017-18 was finalised, pursuant to the changes in the norms, etc. That, the PSC is a constitutional functionary and even mere inclusion of a candidate in the ranked list or select list does not automatically confirm the right of appointment and that candidates cannot dictate and demand as to the time when the PSC should take such a decision for the selection process, since the PSC found it highly necessary that O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 38 the selection process in question should go ahead for finalisation, in view of the requirement of teaching staff and that, taking into account the last concluded selection process, it was found necessary to go ahead with the instant selection process. It is also argued that, the PSC has already set in motion the next selection process and it is expected to be finalised soon and that the said stand of the PSC is fully in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in para No.42 of Ravidas' case (supra), wherein it has been held that recruitment to the Civil Service through the PSC selection process is a continuous and ongoing process and that the PSC has to decide on the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list, based on the vacancies actually reported to them and, where vacancies do not exist and are not reported, based on the vacancies anticipated to arise.

17. The parties have been heard in extenso on various days and the pleadings and materials on record have also been considered by us. Before we consider the factual details and other relevant aspects of the matter, it may be pertinent to refer to the norms of the PSC in the preparation of the size of the shortlist and also on the legal position settled in relation to the finalisation of the size of the shortlist prepared by the PSC.

18. It is common ground that the applicable norms regarding O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 39 the preparation of shortlist by the PSC is covered by circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003, which reads as follows:-

"It has been the aim of the Commission for the last few years to clear the accumulation of applications for selection to various posts so as to enable the Commission to advise the candidates within one year of the last date fixed for receipt of application. The Commission have succeeded to considerable extent in this regard and now the Commission is in a position to make yearly examination for many posts, in which vacancies occur regularly. Though as per Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure, the normal period of validity of a ranked list is only one year, for all practical purposes, it was considered as 3 years and the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list were decided so as to satisfy the requirement for a period of 3 years. Circular 17/87 dated 4.7.1987 was issued in this context, stipulating that short list and ranked list shall contain 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the pendency of previous ranked list. Consequent to the application of technical devices like computers, scanners, etc. and by streamlining the working of the offices of the Commission, it is now possible for the Commission to finalise selection within short period. In the circumstances, Commission have decided to effect certain modifications in the procedure for preparation of shortlist and ranked list. Circular No.17/87 is therefore modified to the following extent.

1. The number of candidates to be included in the short lists and Ranked list should not be decided mechanically. Commission will decide 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. 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 turns such as NJD/TPO, etc. to be satisfied, of course bearing in mind that reservation communities should not lose their turn due to paucity of candidates.

2. In cases where the Commission have ordered to include a particular number of candidates who have secured top marks in the Main List, and if this number cannot be exactly obtained on the basis of the cut off marks and if the next lower ranking is taken it would exceed this number, then the nearest number in the higher range alone shall be considered. For example, if the Commission have ordered to include top 100 candidates, in the Main List and while preparing the list there is only 95 candidates in a particular range of marks, the range is to be lowered in order to reach 100 candidates. But if lowering the range the number reaches to 110, i.e., above 100, the nearest number i.e. 95 is to be reckoned as the number of candidates to be included in the Main List.

3. There shall be no modification in the guidelines in Circular No.17/87 regarding preparation of the Supplementary O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 40 list. However, the number of candidates to be included in each community shall be reduced from three to two.

4. While submitting the selection proposals the recruitment sections and the District Officers should consider the above aspects and necessary details may also be put up before the Commission for taking a decision on the proposals. The above orders will be brought into force with immediate effect. All pending cases will be prepared in the light of the above orders."

19. A reading of the abovesaid Circular dated 01.12.2003 would make it clear that the prior norms followed till then by the PSC, was on the basis of Circular No.17/1987 dated 04.07.1987 and taking note of the maximum validity period of the ranked list as 3 years, in terms of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, it was then felt that the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list were to be decided, so as to satisfy the requirement of 3 years and it was thus stipulated in Circular dated 04.07.1987 that the shortlist of ranked list shall contain 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the pendency of the ranked list. But, at the time of issuance of the Circular dated 01.12.2003, it was found by the PSC that technical facilities, like computerisation and streamlining of work, has made it easily possible for the Commission to finalise the selection within a short period. Hence, the Commission has ordered, as per the Circular dated 01.12.2003, that the previous norms, as per Circular dated 04.07.1987, O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 41 will stand altered and modified. It is accordingly that the Commission has ordered, as per Circular dated 01.12.2003, that the number of candidates to be included in the short list of ranked list should not be decided mechanically. That, the Commission will decide the number to be included in each case, considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, nature of the posts and chances of occurrence of vacancies. We need not get into the details regarding the preparation of the supplementary list to the main list, as the present cases do not involve any disputes in that regard. Once the PSC decides broadly about the size of the shortlist, based on the abovesaid norms viz., the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous ranked list, the nature of posts and chances of occurrence of vacancies, then further fine tune process is dealt with in clause 2 of the said circular, regarding when the PSC has ordered to include a particular number of candidates, who have secured top marks in the main list, and if this number cannot be exactly obtained on the basis of the cut off marks and when the next lower ranking is taken it would exceed this number, the nearest number in the higher range alone shall be considered, etc. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 42 ISSUE OF MINIMUM CUT OFF MARKS:-

20. The Division Bench of this Court in Ajayan's case (supra) [2006 (3) KLT 854], by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra) [AIR 2003 SC 4580] has held that, going by the provisions contained in the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Recruitment as well as the Special Rules and Norms of Recruitment, issued by the Government, PSC does not have the power to prescribe any minimum cut off marks for deciding on the number of candidates to be included in the main list of the short list, unless they are explicitly empowered in that regard by the rules of recruitment or it is explicitly notified in the selection notification, etc. At this juncture, we would straight away deal with the secondary contention raised by the applicants regarding the alleged fixation of cut off marks in this case.

21. The Tribunal has already found that the PSC has not fixed any minimum cut off marks for deciding the size of the short list in these cases.

22. Further, the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas' case supra has clearly held that it may be true that the PSC has no power to fix any minimum cut off marks for deciding the size of the short list, but PSC can decide the size of the short list based on the norms, as per O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 43 circular No.30/2003 dated 1/12/2003. In the instant case, the pleadings and materials on record would clearly show that the PSC had decided about the size of the short list and the so called cut off marks alleged by the applicants is nothing but the marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the shortlist concerned. As clearly stated in Clause 2 of the PSC circular dated 01.12.2003, once the PSC orders to include a particular number of candidates, who have secured the top marks in the main list and if the number of candidates cannot be exactly obtained on the basis of any specific marks, etc., then the next lower ranking is taken, which would exceed the number of candidates tentatively fixed, then the nearest number in the higher range alone shall be considered. Specific illustrations were also given thereunder that if the PSC had decided to include the top 100 candidates, in the main list, and while preparing the list, if there are only 95 candidates in a particular range of marks, the range is to be lowered in order to reach 100 candidates and upon lowering the range, if the number reaches to 110, i.e., above 100, then the nearest number, i.e., 95 is to be reckoned as the number of candidates to be included in the main list.

We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that what is involved in the present case is that the PSC has not fixed any minimum cut off marks to decide on the number of candidates and what is done O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 44 is to decide on the size of the short list and then the number of candidates to be included in the main list of the respective short lists and then the size of the supplementary list and the so called cut off marks, as understood by the applicants, is nothing but the marks in the written examination of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the short list. Precisely, it is for this reason that such mark appears to be different for various districts and it is not the same marks for all districts. This is so because the size of the short list has been decided by the PSC for each of the districts separately and therefore the marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the short list of District A may vary with such marks corresponding to another district, viz., District B, etc. Hence, at the outset, we would repell the secondary contentions of the applicants based on the alleged fixation of the minimum cut off marks. However, this does not necessarily mean that the size of the main list of the short list cannot be challenged by the applicants on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the norms and parameters fixed as per Clause 1 of the PSC circular dated 01.12.2003. Hence, we will have to consider the tenability or otherwise of the contention of the applicants that the size of the short list has been fixed by the PSC, without taking into account the parameters and norms in clause 1 of the above Circular dated 01.12.2003, more O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 45 particularly, about assessment of the occurrence of vacancies and the nature of posts. So, the main contention of the applicants in that regard would be resolved later. Now it would be pertinent to refer to some of the laid down decisions of this Court regarding the scope and ambit of judicial review of the decision making process of the PSC in relation to the size of the short list. We have already referred to Ajayan's case (supra) [2006 (3) KLT 854 (DB)] as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra) [AIR 2003 SC 4580]. There is no necessity to get into those aspects again, as we have already held that the decision of the Tribunal that the PSC has not fixed any minimum cut off marks, in deciding the size of the short list in these cases, is correct and sustainable. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN CASE LAWS:-

23. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v.

Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB)] is the leading case in that regard enunciated by this Court. But before that, it would be pertinent to refer to the dictum laid down by a 4 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the celebrated case in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1985) 4 SCC 417] wherein the Apex Court, after placing reliance on various expert views, including that rendered by the Kothari Committee, has categorically held that the number of O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 46 candidates to be called for an interview, after the conduct of a written examination, in the order of marks obtained in the written examination should not exceed twice or, at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled.

24. So, the applicants would point out that the 2 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra), has held that the number of candidates to be included in the interview would be 3 to 5 times the number of vacancies sought to be filled up. The Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas' case (supra) has precisely resolved this issue in para No.42 thereof by holding that, though the 2 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra) has held that, generally speaking, the short list should be in the ratio of 3:5 candidates per post/vacancy, the larger Bench of 4 Judges of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) has categorically held that the number of candidates to be called for interview should not exceed twice or, at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up. So, the limit of 2 to 3 times, envisaged as per the dictum of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) fixes the outer and maximum limits of the short list and not the mandatory minimum size of the list.

25. Further, the Full Bench, in Ravidas' case (supra) has O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 47 extensively considered the applicability of the norms and parameters laid down in the PSC Circular dated 01.12.2003 in para No.34 thereof, and has clearly held that the various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court has clearly recognised the power of the PSC to short list candidates to be called for interview, based on the marks secured by them in the written examination which precedes the interview. Further that, such short listing cannot be done on the basis of any minimum cut off marks fixed by the PSC unless the Rules governing the selection authorises the prescription of cut off marks or it is prescribed in the selection notification inviting applications for the post. Further, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that, in respect of a post to which selection is to be done by interview, then a screening test can be conducted to short list candidates and such short listing cannot be done by prescribing cut off marks in the screening test, unless it is specifically authorised, etc. However, the Full Bench also found that it has been categorically declared by the Apex Court in the decision as in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) that, where there is a written examination, then the number of candidates to be called for interview in the order of marks obtained in the written examination shall not exceed twice, or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies sought to be filled up. In para No.36 thereof, the Full Bench, has O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 48 considered condition No.9 of the Public Service Commission Selection Notification that, where the number of qualified candidates were unduly large, then, having regard to the number of vacancies, the PSC may restrict the number of candidates to be called for the interview to such extent as they may decide 0n the basis of qualifications/marks/written test/practical test or any other basis. It was held therein that the proviso to Clause (ii) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure clearly stipulates that, where the number of qualified applicants is unduly large, then having regard to the number of vacancies, the PSC may restrict the number of candidates to be called for oral test (interview) to such extent as may be decided after conducting any examination as they deem fit and the 2nd proviso to Rule 5(ii) further stipulates that the PSC may also restrict the number of candidates to be called for oral test (interview) on the basis of any one or more of the following criteria (a) qualification (b) higher marks, etc. In para No.38 of Ravidas' case (supra) the Full Bench has considered the issue as to whether the short list impugned therein had been prepared in terms of the stipulations in the norms as per the Circular issued by the PSC. Therein, the Full Bench held that the previous Circular No.17/1987 dated 04.07.1987, produced as Ext.P7 therein, had then stipulated that a short list and O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 49 ranked list should contain 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised from the previous ranked list. But, that the said circular dated 04.07.1987 has been modified by the present circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003 (Ext.R1(a) therein) and the relevant portion of the said circular dated 01.12.2003 has also been quoted. The Full Bench has come to the crux of the matter in para 41 of Ravidas' case (supra) and has considered the question whether the short listing done by the PSC in those cases were broadly in accordance with the norms as per the Circular dated 01.12.2003. It was noted that the contention of the petitioners therein was that, though only 81 vacancies have been notified in the selection notification, the vacancies had increased due to retirement and the creation of additional posts and it was contended that the PSC has not included adequate number of candidates, corresponding to 3 to 5 times the total number of notified and anticipated vacancies in the impugned short list. The said short list consisted of 195 candidates in the main list and 99 candidates in the supplementary list and it was found that 258 candidates were actually advised from the said ranked list, consisting of 195 candidates in the main list and 99 candidates in the supplementary list from the ranked list published on 02.07.2005 and thereafter the main list of the ranked list had exhausted after advising 258 candidates and the said O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 50 exhaustion appears to be before the expiry of the maximum 3 year period of the list. The Full Bench has also noted that fresh selection notification, inviting application for appointment to the very same post of Veterinary Surgeon, was already effected by the PSC and a written test was also held by them. Holding that the previous Circular No.17/1987 was modified by the Circular dated 01.12.2003, the Full Bench held that, as per the said Circular dated 01.12.2003, the PSC has to decide the number of candidates to be included in each case, considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous ranked list, the nature of the post and the chances for occurrence of vacancies. It was held that, in view of the modification of the norms, as per Circular dated 01.12.2003, it was not mandatory for the PSC to prepare a main list containing 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list. On facts, it was held by the Full Bench therein that the number of notified vacancies of veterinary surgeon therein was only 81 and it was held that the inclusion of 195 candidates in the main list and 99 candidates in the supplementary list of the short list cannot be said to be inadequate or unreasonable. More particularly, in para No.42, the Full Bench has categorically held that the candidates have no right to claim that all the vacancies that arise O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 51 over a period of 3 years should necessarily be filled up from only one ranked list and that as per the Rules, the validity of a ranked list, except in the case of a training post, which is only one year, is for a period of 3 years from the date of publication or till a fresh ranked list is published. That, as per the operative portion of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the ranked list published by the PSC shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force. Provided that, the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new ranked list, after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of 3 years, whichever is earlier. Hence, the Full Bench has categorically held therein that the PSC is, therefore, free to notify the vacancies and publish a fresh ranked list without waiting for the period of 3 years to run out and that recruitment to the State Civil Services by the PSC is a continuing and ongoing process and every year, thousands of students pass out from schools and colleges in the State and that if the contentions of the petitioners therein that the PSC should publish ranked list, large enough to fill up all the vacancies likely to arise during the period of 3 years from its publication, is accepted then students who pass out of schools and colleges will have to wait for years after the completion of their studies to even apply for O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 52 employment. Further, it has been held that the PSC has to decide on the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list based on the vacancies actually reported to them and where vacancies do not exist and are not reported, then based on the vacancies anticipated to arise. The Full Bench reiterated that, in view of the declaration of law made by the larger Bench of 4 Judges of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra), the number of candidates to be called for interview, after the conduct of a written examination etc., should not exceed twice or, at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up. As mentioned hereinabove, the Full Bench also noted the observation of the 2 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra) that generally speaking the supplementary list has to be in the ratio of 3:5 candidates per vacancy. But that, the larger Bench of 4 Judges in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) has categorically held that the number of vacancies called for interview should not exceed twice or, at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up. It will be pertinent to refer to paras 38, 41 & 42 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas' case (supra), which read as follows:-

"38. That leads us to the question whether the shortlists in the cases on hand, which have been prepared in terms of the stipulations in the circulars issued by the Commission are vitiated for the reason that the Commission has fixed cut off marks for shortlisting the candidates. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 53 Incidentally the question whether the Commission has fixed any cut off marks at all is also a point which arises for decision. The guidelines for preparation of the shortlists and ranked lists were issued by the Commission in Circular No.17 of 1987 dated 04.07.1987 wherein it was stipulated that shortlists and ranked lists should contain three times the number of vacancies reported and advised from the previous ranked list. A copy of the said circular is on record as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.11916 of 2005. The said circular was modified by Ext.R1(a), Circular No.30 of 2003 dated 1.12.2003, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

1. The number of candidates to be included in the Short Lists and Ranked Lists should not be decided mechanically, Commission will decide 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. 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 turns such as NJD/NCA/TPO etc. to be satisfied, of course bearing in mind that reservation communities should not lose their turn due to the paucity of candidates.

2. In case where the commission have ordered to include a particular number of candidates (who have secured top marks in the Main List, if this number cannot be exactly obtained on the basis of the cut off marks and if the next lower range is taken it would exceed this number then the nearest number in the higher range alone shall be considered. For example, if the Commission have ordered to include top 100 candidates in the Main List and while thus preparing list there is only 95 candidates in a particular range of marks, the range is to be lowered in order to reach 100 candidates. But if on lowering the range the number reaches to 110, i.e., above 100, the nearest number i.e., 95 is to be reckoned as the number of candidates to be included in the Main List.

3. There shall be no modification in the guidelines in Circular No.17/87 regarding preparation of the Supplementary List. However, the number of candidates to be included in each community shall be reduced from there to two.

4. While submitting the selection proposals the recruitment sections and the District Officers should consider the above aspects and necessary details may also be put up before the Commission for taking a decision on the proposals.

41. We shall now consider the question whether the shortlisting done by the Commission in the cases on hand suffers from any other infirmity. In the Writ Petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department, the number of vacancies notified was 81. The petitioners contend that though only 81 vacancies had been notified in Ext.P1, the vacancies had increased due to retirement/creation of additional posts and that the Commission has not ensured that adequate number of candidates corresponding to 3 to 5 times the total number of notified/anticipated vacancies, is included in Ext.P6 shortlist. Ext.P6 shortlist, the method of preparation of which is objected to, consists of 195 candidates in the main list and 99 in the supplementary lists. The pleadings disclose that 258 candidates were O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 54 advised from the ranked list published on 2.7.2005 and the main list of the ranked list exhausted after advising 258 candidates. The Writ Petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II were presented on 6.4.2005 and 28.8.2006. It is also not in dispute that a fresh notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department was issued on 15.1.2007 and a written test was also held for those who applied pursuant to it on 19.12.2007. Though Ext.P7 circular (Circular No.17 of 1987) stipulated that shortlists should contain three times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list, that stipulation was modified by Circular No.30 of 2003 dated 1.12.2003 wherein it is stipulated that the Commission will decide the number of candidates to be included in each case considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, the nature of the post and the chances of occurrence of vacancies. On the terms of Circular No.30 of 2003, by which Ext.P7 circular in W.P.(C) No.11916 of 2005 was modified, it was not mandatory for the Commission to prepare a main list containing 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list. The number of vacancies of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department notified in Ext.P1 was only 81 an it cannot therefore be said that the shortlist and the ranked list did not contain adequate number of candidates.

42. Further, the petitioners have no right to claim that all the vacancies arising over a period of 3 years should be filled up from only one ranked list. As per the rules, the validity of a ranked list (except in the case of recruitment to posts involving training) is for a period of 3 years from the date of publication or till a fresh ranked list is published, whichever is earlier. The Commission is therefore free to notify vacancies and publish a fresh ranked list without waiting for the period of 3 years to run out.

Further, recruitment by the Commission to the State Civil Service is a continuous and ongoing process. Every year hundreds of thousands of students pass out of schools and colleges in the State. If the contention of the petitioners that the Commission should publish ranked lists large enough to fill up all the vacancies arising during a period of 3 years from its publication is accepted, students who pass out of schools and colleges will have to wait for years after completion of their studies to even apply for employment. The Commission decides on the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list based on the vacancies actually reported to them and where the vacancies do not exist and are not reported, based on vacancies anticipated to arise. The Apex Court has in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) held that where there is a composite test consisting of written examination followed by a viva-voce, the number of candidates to be called for the interview in the order of marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The shortlist and the ranked list published for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade-II satisfy the above criterion. Though in State of Punjab and others v. Manjit Singh & Ors. (supra) the Apex Court has held that generally speaking the shortlist has to be in the ratio of 3:5 candidates per post, a larger bench of four Judges of the Apex Court has in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana (supra) held that the number of candidates to be called for interview should not exceed twice or at the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 55 highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. 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."

26. It is also pertinent to refer to para 43 of Ravidas' case (supra), where the Full Bench has held that the plea of the petitioners, seeking setting aside of the impugned short list therein and to include them in the short list, without impleading any of the selected candidates, cannot be accepted as it would result in total re- arrangement of the ranked list leading to displacement of candidates already recruited in service. The Full Bench also held that, though one affected individual was impleaded and news paper publication was also taken, in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395], it is held in similar circumstances that, it is imperative that all the selected candidates are joined as parties to the writ petition and that publication of the notice of the writ proceedings in the news paper does not cure the defect and that the provisions contained in Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules can be applied only when a large and unspecified number of candidates are involved. Since the number of affected candidates in O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 56 the ranked list is definite in number, the Full Bench has held that the impleadment of the affected individual and taking out notice in the news papers, etc. will not cure the defect of non-impleadment of affected parties and also held that relief has been denied on that ground. It may also be pertinent and relevant to consider some of the other individual cases dealt with by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case (supra).

27. The legal principles laid down by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case (supra) have been followed and applied in the common judgment dated 27.09.2010 in W.P.(C) No.23559 & 24430/2008. It will be pertinent to refer to para 8 of the judgment in W.P.(C) 23559/2008, which reads as follows:-

"8. After having gone through the decision of the Apex Court reported in ((1985) 4 SCC 417) (supra) and that of this Court reported in 2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB) (supra) which was rendered relying on the aforesaid Apex Court decision and adverting to the above mentioned relevant facts, I am of the considered view that no illegality can be attributed in the action on the part of the Commission in preparing Exts.P4 and P5 short lists and Exts.P9 and P13 rank lists and as such they call for no judicial review. According to me, the creation and availability of vacancies in the categories of HSST and HSST (Jr.) on account of regularisation or upgradation of posts of HSST (Jr.) are irrelevant in the case on hand, for the foregoing reasons. A perusal of the Full Bench decision would reveal that the Commission cannot be compelled to prepare and publish a rank list large enough to fill up all the vacancies occurring during the life period of such rank list. It was held thereunder that preparation of such lists would virtually deprive the students who passed out from schools and colleges even an opportunity to apply for employment and therefore it will be advisable for the Commission to decide the number of candidates to be included in the rank list based on the vacancies actually reported to them or when vacancies do not exist and not reported based on vacancies anticipated to arise. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that the Commission was at fault in anticipating the number of vacancies for the purpose of deciding the size of the list in respect of HSST. In respect of HSST (Jr.), admittedly, only eight vacancies O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 57 were reported prior to the finalisation of the short list and as against the same a short list was prepared in respect of HSST category carrying 39 candidates in the main list and 59 candidates in the supplementary lists."

A reading of para 7 of the said judgment would further indicate that it was held therein that the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the main list alone should contain more than twice or thrice the number of reported vacancies, implying thereby that, in preparing the short list, the number of candidates included in both the main list and the supplementary list thereof could be reckoned, etc.

28. Similar issues have also been considered in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, rendered on 07.01.2010, in W.P.(C) No.35315/2009. It has been held in para No.7 thereof that in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case (supra) the procedure adopted by the PSC for shortening the ranked list, in accordance with the PSC Circular dated 01.12.2003, cannot be found fault with and thus this Court repelled the plea based on cut off marks, etc. Further, para No.8 thereof has repealed the plea for including larger number of candidates in the short list, based on the 3 year maximum period of the ranked list.

29. It will also be pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge of this Court, as per judgment rendered on 31.07.2017 in W.P. (C) No.24909/2016 and 38280/2016, dealt with a case, wherein the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 58 notified vacancies was only 11 and that though the appointing authority had reported 555 vacancies, only 1002 candidates were included in the main list of the short list, along with a separate supplementary list. Altogether, 1235 candidates were advised from the previous ranked list, out of which 1136 candidates were advised from its main list. The learned Single Judge has held therein that the publication of the short list and the ranked list without reckoning the vacancies available is not justified, etc. and directed that atleast 3 times the reported vacancies should have been necessarily included in the ranked list and that since 950 candidates are remaining unadvised in the main list, the PSC should publish an additional list, containing 555 more candidates in the main list, with appropriate number of candidates in the supplementary list, etc.

30. Being aggrieved thereby the PSC had taken up the matter in intra court appeal, wherein the Division Bench has rendered judgment on 23.05.2019 in W.A. No.2268/2017 & W.A. No.2448/2019. After noting the abovesaid aspects, the Division Bench noted that the main list contained 950 candidates and the supplementary list contained 2592 candidates, totaling to 3542 candidates, which has been operated for the last two years and the PSC has stated that only 144 vacancies were reported, when it took a decision on 12.10.2015, regarding the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 59 size of the shortlist. The Division Bench also noted the submission of the appointing authority that 36 vacancies existed as on 30.05.2019, out of which 30 vacancies have already been reported and 6 vacancies are about to be reported. The Division Bench has held in para No.3 of the abovesaid judgment in W.A. No.2268/2017 that the ranked list is not a reservoir from which candidates could be advised from time to time and that sufficient opportunity should be extended to those who were subsequently qualified and ready for employment and that nothing stands in the way of the PSC for going for a fresh selection notification and preparing a fresh ranked list anew, after the existing ranked list has been exhausted and that the writ petitioners therein, who were in the supplementary list, cannot, as of right, seek for inflammation of the ranked list, so as to claim inclusion in the main list. In para No.4 thereof, the Division Bench has held that the learned Single Judge has exceeded her writ jurisdiction in directing that the ranked list be expanded, on the premise that more number of vacancies existed. It was further held therein that micro management of the functions of the PSC is beyond the purview of the writ court, which will not step in unless there is gross illegality. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2019, rendered by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions and O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 60 dismissed those writ petitions giving liberty to the authorities to fill up the remaining vacancies on the exhaustion of the main list. The relevant portions of para Nos.3 & 4 of the abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.2268/2017 reads as follows:-

"3. It is submitted on behalf of the Kerala Water Authority that 36 vacancies existed as on 30.5.2019 out of which 30 vacancies have already been reported and 6 vacancies are about to be reported. The ranked list is not a reservoir from which candidates could be advised from time to time and sufficient opportunity should be extended to those who are qualified now and ready for employment. Nothing stands in the way of the Public Service Commission to go for a fresh notification and prepare a ranked list anew after the existing ranked list has been exhausted. The writ petitioners who are in the supplementary lists cannot as of right seek for inflammation of the ranked list and creep into the main list as is attempted to be done.

4. The learned single Judge has far exceeded her jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in directing the ranked list to be expanded on the premise that more number of vacancies then existed. The micro management of the functions of the Public Service Commission is beyond the purview of the writ court which will not step in unless there are gross illegality. We set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petitions giving liberty to the Kerala Water Authority to fill up the remaining vacancies till the main list is exhausted."

31. The Division Bench of this Court in the case in Sajesh Babu v. K.P.S.C. & Others [2014 (1) KHC 279 = 2014 (1) KLT 302] has held in para No.11 thereof that finding out ways and means of appointing people on permanent or temporary basis in public service, following a transparent mode of selection and recruitment, is entirely within the domain of the authorities concerned, to be appropriately and meaningfully done by those in governance in terms of the Constitution and the laws and with necessary consultative process, as O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 61 prescribed in the Constitution, with the PSC. Further that, the enlargement of a ranked list or alternate modes of permitting a list to operate in public interest cannot be done through judicial intervention, either by the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or by this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, unless there is material to hold that the exercise carried out by the PSC is unsustainable. In that case, the PSC had published a short list containing 269 candidates in the list and 354 candidates in the supplementary list and the final ranked list was published with 204 candidates in the main list and 182 candidates in the supplementary list. The Division Bench noted in para No.9 thereof that the only pending vacancies were only 8 and that all other vacancies have already been reported and advised against. Hence, it was held therein that the short listing of candidates therein cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary and that no interference can be made in the matter.

32. The Division Bench, in the case in Sonia Alex & Others v. State of Kerala & Others (judgment dated 03.03.2017 in O.P. (KAT) No.111/2014 ) [2017 KHC 465 = 2017 (4) KLT 774 = ILR 2017 (2) Ker. 967], has held that, as already held by the Full Bench in Ravidas's case (supra), candidates have no right to claim that all the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 62 vacancies arising over a period of three years should be filled up from one ranked list and after the expiry of the one year period, the Commission is at liberty to finalise a new ranked list and the recruitment to public services is an ongoing and continuous process, etc.

33. In the decision in the case in A. Sreekantan Nair & Others v. M.K. Muraleedharan Nair & Others [1991 LabIC2163=1991(2) KLT SN 3 (Case No.4)=MANU/KE/0647/1991], it has been held in para Nos.25 & 26 thereof that equal opportunity for public employment is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and that public employment opportunity is national wealth or property of the nation, which all citizens are equally entitled to, subject, of course, to the possession of qualifications necessary for holding the post, no class of people can monopolise public employment for any reason and the right to employment is no private property, but one to be shared equally by all those who are eligible for it. Further that, particularly in this country of perennial unemployment, the guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment assumes great importance and such opportunity must be available to succeeding generations of young men who become eligible for appointment from time to time, by acquiring the necessary qualifications. It should not O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 63 be that the right to employment gets concentrated in a few hands and the right to compete and be selected for employment is consequently denied for long periods altogether. As far as possible, young talent and succeeding generations ought to find their avenues in public employment, if they so desire, and they should not be shut out from appointment, for the mere reason that selections have been made long ago, on an imaginary or inflated basis and those included in the old select lists remain to be appointed. Further that, otherwise, the guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 will become illusory and creation of such reservoirs from which appointments are to be made, for years to come, leads to arbitrariness, etc. It will be pertinent to refer to para Nos.25 & 26 of the decision of this Court in A. Sreekantan Nair's case (supra), which read as follows:-

"25. Equal opportunity for public employment is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Public employment opportunity is national wealth or property of the nation which all citizens are equally entitled to subject of course to the possession of qualifications necessary for holding the post. No class of people can monopolise public employment for any reason. Right to employment is no private property, but one to be shared equally by all those who are eligible for it.

26. In this country of perennial unemployment, particularly, the guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment assumes great importance. Such opportunity must be available to succeeding generations of young men who become eligible for appointment from time to time by acquiring the necessary qualifications. It should not be that the right to employment gets concentrated in a few hands and the right to compete and be selected for employment consequently denied for long periods altogether. As far possible, young talent and succeeding generations ought to find their avenues in public employment if so desired and they should not be shut out from appointment for the mere reason that selections have been made long ago on an imaginary or inflated basis and those included in the old select lists remain to be appointed. Otherwise the guarantees under Articles 14 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 64 and 16 will become illusory. Creation of such reservoirs from which appointments are to be made for years to come leads to arbitrariness for the reason that any advice beyond the necessities of a particular period will result in stagnation of the list for a long number of years with resultant denial of opportunities for the subsequent eligible candidates."

34. After hearing all the parties concerned, it is only to be observed that we are fully bound by the legal principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas's case (supra) and we would respectfully endorse so. Further, we are also in concurrence with the views expressed in the Single Bench decisions referred to hereinabove as in the judgment dated 27.09.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 23559/2008, judgment dated 07.01.2010 in W.P.(C) No.35315/2009, A. Sreekantan Nair's case (supra) [1991 LabIC2163] and that of the judgments of the Division Bench mentioned above as in the judgment dated 23.05.2019 in W.A. No.2268/2017, Sonia Alex's case (supra) [2017 KHC 465 (DB)], Sajesh Babu's case (supra) [2014 (1) KHC 279 (DB)], etc.

35. Now it may also be pertinent to refer to a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in relation to Munsiff-Magistrate selection in the State of Kerala, in the case High Court of Kerala v. Reshma A. [(2021) 3 SCC 755]. Without getting into the details, it may be pertinent to note the rules involved in that selection, which is "Special Rules in respect of Kerala Judicial Service" and Category (2) of Rule 3 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 65 thereof is in relation to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. The unamended Rule 7 thereof has been given in para 14 of the decision in A.Reshma's case (2021) 3 SCC 755, which reads as follows:

"Rule 7. (1) .. .... ...

(2) The list consisting of not more than double the number of probable vacancies notified shall be forwarded for the approval of the Governor. The list approved by the Governor shall come into force from the date of the approval and shall remain in force for a period of three years or until a fresh approved list is prepared, whichever is earlier."

(emphasis supplied)

36. The abovesaid rules were amended w.e.f. 19.1.2019, pursuant to which the last sentence of Rule 7(1) was substituted (see para 16 of Reshmas case supra). As per the said amendment, Rule 7(2) was substituted by the following provision (see para 16 of Reshma's case supra) Rule 7(2) of the existing Rules be substituted by the following:

'(2) The merit list prepared by the High Court shall be forwarded for the approval of the Governor. The list approved by the Governor shall come into force from the date of the approval and shall be valid till the notified vacancies and the vacancies that may arise within one year from the date of approval of the list, are filled up or a fresh list comes into force, whichever is earlier.'"

(emphasis supplied).

So the substance of Rule 7(2) is that the approved list shall come into force from the date of approval of the competent authority and shall be valid till the notified vacancies and the vacancies that may arise.

37. The unamended Rule No.7(2) earlier stipulated that the approved list will be in force for a period of three years or until a fresh list O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 66 is prepared and after the 2019 amendment, the stipulation in Rule 7(2) is that the approved list shall be valid till the notified vacancies and the vacancies that may arise within one year from the date of approval of the list are filled up or a fresh list comes into force, whichever is earlier.

38. Only for easy comparison, it may be apposite to extract the contents of the operative portion of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:

"Rule 13. The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one years from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier.

5 provisos thereto are omitted.

xxx xxx xxx "]

39. The list in question in that case was approved by the competent authority on 7.5.2020 and the one year period thereof was upto 6.5.2021 (see paras 3 & 4 in Reshma's case supra [(2021) 3 SCC 755]). The subject writ petitions were filed before this Court in May 2020, contending that as on 7.5.2020 and thereafter, several vacancies of Munsiff-Magistrate had arisen, which were not specified in the selection notification inviting applications. The petitioners therein claimed that, in accordance with Rule 7(2), as amended w.e.f. 14.1.2019, all vacancies which arise for a period of one year after O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 67 approval of the merit list are to be filled up from the approved merit list. The specific factual plea was that the appointments of Munsiff- Magistrates from the said approved list must not be limited to 32 vacancies and must take into account all other vacancies that have arisen or which may arise till 6.5.2021, ie. within one year from the date on which the merit list dated 7.5.2020 was notified.

40. Per contra, the High Court on the administrative side contended that appointments to vacancies in the judicial service are regulated by statutory rules and that the directions and time line fixed by the Apex Court by virtue of directions issued under Art.142 of the Constitution of India are contained in the cases as in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission [(2008) 17 SCC 703]. Relying on Malik Mazhar Sultan's case supra [(2008) 17 SCC 703] the respondent administration therein contended that the selection notification inviting applications is issued only for those vacancies that are available till 31 st of December of the year in which the notification is issued and only these notified vacancies can be filled by the recruitment process of a given year. During the pendency of the writ petitions a fresh selection notification dated 30.6.2020 was issued by the High Court on the administrative side for 47 posts of Munsiff-Magistrate. The Single Bench of this Court O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 68 in the impugned judgment rendered on 9.7.2020 {(Swetha Sasikumar v. State of Kerala [2020 SCC Online Ker.2633]} held that Rule 7(2) provides that vacancies existing and arising within one year from the date of approval of the list are to be filled up from the select list, unless a fresh list comes into force before the last date of the year. The learned Single Judge thus held that, since the special rules govern the selection and appointment, the respondent administration therein could not deny appointment on the ground that the recruitment would not fall within the time lines prescribed in Malik Mazhar Sultan's (3) case supra [(2008) 17 SCC 703] and it was specifically held that denial of appointment to the additional vacancies would be violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, etc. Thus, the prayers in the Writ Petition were allowed and the respondent administration therein was directed to forward an additional list of candidates from the approval list dated 20.2.2020 to the competent authority for approval and appointment. The abovesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge in Swetha Sasikumar's case supra was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in intra court appeal, wherein it was held that the amended Rule 7(2) provides that the approved list is valid for the notified vacancies and the vacancies arising within one year from the date of approval of the list or till a O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 69 fresh list comes into force and that consequently the merit list approved on 7.5.2020 would be valid for vacancies till 6.5.2021 or till a fresh list comes into force, whichever is earlier, etc. Aggrieved by the abovesaid verdict in the writ proceedings, the respondent administration therein (High Court on the administrative side) preferred SLPs, which resulted in the civil appeals, which culminated in the judgment dated 11.1.2021 in the abovesaid civil appeal {A.Reshma's case supra [(2021) 3 SCC 755]}. Therein the Apex Court specifically noted the impact of a series of directions issued by the Apex Court under Art.142 of the Constitution, regarding timely and annual based selection to fill up posts in judicial services like Munsiff- Magistrate, etc. and the time lines given by the Apex Court in those series of judgments as in Malik Mazhar Sultan's case supra [(2008) 17 SCC 703] and ultimately upheld the contentions and pleas of the appellant therein (High Court on the administrative side) and reversed and set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Bench, which interfered in the matter. Interference made by the Apex Court was on various grounds. One such vital ground was on the basis of the well known constitutional principle that ordinarily appointment of direct recruitment selection notifications should be confined to notified vacancies, as otherwise it would affect O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 70 the rights of later qualified persons for public employment, which is guaranteed under Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, etc. The Apex Court in paras 48 to 53, 71.2, etc. has dealt with the various laws enunciated by the Apex Court on the issue as to limiting appointment, on the basis of selection process, to the notified vacancies, etc. The case laws elaborately considered by the Apex Court in A.Reshma's case supra [(2021) 3 SCC 755] are with reference to the decisions as in Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board [(1996) 4 SCC 319, para 25], Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, [(2010) 2 SCC 637], UOI v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, [1992 Supp (3) SCC 84], Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat, [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591], State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986, [(1994) 1 SCC 126], Ashok Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board [(1996) 1 SCC 283], Anurag Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2016) 9 SCC 426], Rahul Dutta v. State of Bihar [(2019) 5 SCC 158], Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan [(2011) 12 SCC 85], etc.

41. Brief reference to 2 of such decisions may not be out of place at this instance. A 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, [(2010) 2 SCC 637] has held as follows O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 71 in paras 7 and 12 as follows: .

"7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution", of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale", otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law. (Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri [1992 Supp (3) SCC 84 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 : (1992) 21 ATC 851] , Gujarat State Dy.

Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159 : (1994) 28 ATC 78] ,State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986 [(1994) 1 SCC 126 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 274 :

(1994) 26 ATC 500 : AIR 1994 SC 736], Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB [(1996) 4 SCC 319 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 934] and Ashok Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board [(1996) 1 SCC 283 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 298 : (1996) 32 ATC 235 : AIR 1996 SC 976].) xxx xxx xxx

12. In view of above, the law can be summarised to the effect that any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction, being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, thus, a nullity, inexecutable and unenforceable in law. In case the vacancies notified stand filled up, the process of selection comes to an end.

Waiting list, etc. cannot be used as a reservoir, to fill up the vacancy which comes into existence after the issuance of notification/advertisement. The unexhausted select list/waiting list becomes meaningless and cannot be pressed in service any more."

42. In Bedanga Talukdar's case supra Khan [(2011) 12 SCC 85], it has been held in para 29 thereof as follows (see pages 92 and 93 of the SCC report):

"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 72 scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

43. We are fully conscious of the difference in rules of procedure regulating selections as in the instant case, in the State of Kerala, in view of the provisions contained in Rules 13 and 14 of the PSC Rules of Procedure. However, we have referred these decisions only to underscore the jurisprudential basis of the reasonings of those judgments, which is that, the right to equal opportunity for public employment guaranteed to candidates to get qualified, subsequent to issuance of a selection notification, flows from Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is precisely the abovesaid aspects that form the bedrock of the jurisprudential foundation laid down by this Court in decisions as in A.Sreekandan Nair & Ors. v. M.K.Muralidharan Nair & Ors. [1991 Lab IC 2163 = 1991 (2) KLT SN 3 (case No.4) = MANU/KE/0647- 1991, paras 25 to 28, etc. thereof. So also, we have referred to the abovesaid decisions of the Apex Court in A.Reshma's case supra (2021) 3 SCC 755, to appreciate the specific interpretative O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 73 approach taken therein by the Apex Court that the rules of selection process should be interpreted in a manner, which is harmonious with the constitutional rights guaranteed for equal opportunity for public employment, given to candidates who qualify subsequently in terms of Arts.14 and 16 as also to be in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, etc. The jurisprudential perspectives of the Apex Court in A.Reshma's case supra (2021) 3 SCC 755, would also be examined through the prisms of the abovesaid Rule 7(2) concerned in that case as well as the operative portion of Rule 13 of PSC Rules of Procedure. So also, it has to be appreciated and borne in mind that the abovesaid jurisprudential basis of respecting the constitutional right of equal opportunity for public employment to candidates, who qualify later, is also the very basis of the substantive reasonings rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2009(2) KLT 295 (FB)], more particularly para 42 thereof (see page 330 and 331 of the KLT report) as well as the various other aforecited decisions of this Court as in Sonia Alex's case supra [2017(4) KLT 774], Sajesh Babu's case supra [2014 (1) KHC 270 (D.B)], judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P(KAT) No. 111/2014, the aforementioned judgment in W.P.(C).No. 35315/2009), judgment of a Division Bench in W.A.No. 2268/2017, etc. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 74

44. Now we would proceed to resolve the main issues in this case.

Resolution of main issues:

It is common ground that the norm to be applied in the instant case for the selection conducted by the PSC, is one as per PSC circular No.30/2003 dated 1.12.2003. We have already held that the impugned short lists have been finalised, not on the basis of fixation of any minimum cut off marks by the PSC, but on the basis of the procedure for shortening of the list of candidates to be called for interview, as envisaged in Clause (2) of the PSC circular dated 1.12.2003. We have already confirmed the correctness of the abovesaid finding made by the Tribunal, in terms of Para 59 on internal page 37 of the impugned common order. So, the core issue is as to whether the impugned shortlisting process in these cases has been done by the PSC, in terms of the norms and parameters contained in Clause (1) of the PSC circular dated 1.12.2003. As per Clause (1) thereof, the Full Bench in Ravidas' case supra [2009 (2) KLT 295(FB) has already held that, in view of the modification and alteration of the earlier norms, as per circular No.17/1987 dated 4.7.1987, by the issuance of the subsequent aforementioned PSC circular dated 1.12.2003, the earlier norm of preparing shortlists and ranked lists, to satisfy the requirements that O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 75 the list should contain three times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the pendency of the previous ranked list, has been given a go-by and further that, the Full Bench has also held that candidates cannot compel that the PSC should prepare the shortlist and ranked list, taking into account all vacancies that are likely to arise during the 3 year maximum currency period of the ranked list to be finalised, based on the shortlist. The minimum assured life span of the ranked list, in terms of the operative portion of Rule 13 of the PSC Rules of Procedure, is one year and thereafter, at any time, the PSC is fully at liberty to finalise the next ranked list and it is only in a case, where the next ranked list is not so finalised, that the ranked list may have currency for a total period of 3 years from the date of its finalization. As held by the Full Bench, the crucial parameters and norms to be followed in the shortlisting process are that the PSC shall not decide the number of candidates to be included in the shortlist and ranked list mechanically, but that the Commission should decide the number of candidates to be included in each case considering (1) the number of vacancies reported (2) number of candidates advised from the previous list and (3) nature of the post and chances of occurrences of vacancies.

45. Going by the admitted pleadings and materials, it can be O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 76 seen that the first two norms regarding taking into account the number of vacancies reported at the time the PSC had taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist on 3.7.2017 and the norm based on the number of candidates advised from the previous list, etc. have been duly taken into account. The facts and figures given in the tabular columns supra for each of the districts would show that the number of candidates included in the main list of the short list or the short list is more than 2 to 3 times the number of reported vacancies actually pending as on 3.7.2017 or number of advices made per year from the previous ranked list, whichever is greater. As held by the Full Bench in Ramdas' case supra, since the minimum assured life span of the list is 1 year and not 3 years, the relevant aspects of previous advices is the number of advices made per year from the previous ranked list. The main thrust of the contentions of the applicants is that the nature of the post is a teaching post and that, going by the finalised new pupil- teacher ratio, based on the Central RTE Act and based on the verdicts of this Court as well as the aforementioned Government orders, large number of vacancies of LPSAs in Government schools would have arisen and that the statutory deadline for the staff fixation process for the academic year 2017-18 was w.e.f. 15.7.2017 and that these aspects were very much within the knowledge of the authorities concerned like O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 77 the PSC, departmental authorities, etc. That therefore, the PSC, when it had taken a decision on 3.7.2017 regarding the size of the shortlist, has not undertaken a reasonable process of assessment of the vacancies likely to arise in each of the districts concerned. In other words, the sheet anchor of the case of the applicants is that the third limb of the norms as per Clause (1) of the circular dated 1.12.2003, i.e. to estimate the reasonable likelihood of occurrence of vacancies in teaching post of LPSAs - has not been properly undertaken. Further that, after the impugned decision taken by the PSC on 3.7.2017, large number of vacancies has actually been reported, which are evident from the various materials produced in various cases like materials from RTE Act and the appointment charts given by the applicants at the time of hearing of these cases, etc. These contentions have been strongly opposed by the PSC.

46. However, it has to be borne in mind that the main ground on which the Tribunal has interfered in the matter, is contained in para 61 (pages 41 and 42) of the impugned common verdict, which reads as follows:

"61. The facts noted above would make it clear that the number of candidates included in the ranked list is significantly less than the vacancies available and reported. It is also relevant to note in this context that the number of candidates to be included in the short list were finalised by the PSC on 3-7-2017. This has to be seen in conjunction with the fact that the General Education Department undertakes an annual exercise for fixing the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 78 staff strength, which is completed by 15th of July every year. It would naturally take some more time for the fresh vacancies to be reported to the PSC. We also note from the documents produced by the learned standing counsel for the PSC that to decide the size of the ranked list, the Commission has gone by the size of the previous ranked list, and the number of candidates advised therefrom. While the number of vacancies already reported would also have been taken into account, it does not appear that the up-to-date position had been ascertained. We have also to note in this context that under circular No.30 of 2013 of the Commission, the number of vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the ranked list is also required to be assessed. From the documents produced by the PSC, it is clear that such an assessment has not been done. There will therefore be a direction to the PSC to pass appropriate orders regarding the expansion of the ranked list after considering the facts as noted above. The Commission shall pass orders in the matter within two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The additional eligible candidates will be advised for appointment, based on the order to be passed, within two months therefrom....... "

47. After noting the factual materials relied on by the applicants, the Tribunal has straightaway concluded that the same would disclose that an assessment has not been done by the PSC regarding the number of vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the ranked list. Thereafter, the Tribunal straightaway proceeded to interfere with the matter, by directing that the PSC shall pass orders regarding the expansion of the ranked list, after considering the factual aspects within two months. The only other reasoning given in the beginning portion of para 61 of the impugned final order is that the PSC has taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist on 3.7.2017 and that this has to be seen in conjunction with the factual aspect that the General Education Department undertakes an annual exercise for fixing the staff strength to be completed by 15 th of July O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 79 every year and that therefore, it would naturally take some more time for fresh vacancies to be reported to the PSC, etc. The Tribunal further clearly states that the PSC has decided the size of the ranked list based on the previous ranked list and the number of candidates advised therefrom and also that they have taken into account the actual number of vacancies reported and pending till then, ie. 3.7.2017. Therefore, as mentioned herein above, even the Tribunal has held that the first two norms, as per Clause (2) of the PSC circular dated 3.12.2003, have been taken into account by the PSC. It is thereafter that the Tribunal straightaway proceeded to conclude that the PSC has not made a reasonable assessment about the number of vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the ranked list and that since the staff fixation would have been completed by the Education Department only by 15.7.2017, it would have taken some more time to report fresh vacancies to be reported to the PSC, etc. What exactly is meant by that is not fully clear and presumably, it means that the PSC should have waited after the staff fixation process was over, instead of taking the decision on 3.7.2017.

48. At the outset, in that regard, it has to be borne in mind that the main reasonings given by the Tribunal, as if that the PSC should have taken into account the number of vacancies likely to arise during O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 80 the 3 year maximum period of ranked list, etc. is plainly and fully against the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas' case supra [2009 (2) KLT 295(FB)]. This is so as the Full Bench has categorically held in para 42 that no candidate can have any right to claim that the vacancy arising over the 3 year maximum period of the ranked list in question should necessarily be taken into account and that as per the rules, the minimum assured life span is one year, after which fresh selection could be set in motion. By the mandate of Rule 13, the ranked list shall remain in force only for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force, provided that the list would continue to be in force till the publication of the new list, after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of 3 years, whichever is early. Further the Full Bench has categorically held in para 42 thereof that the recruitment for public services by the service commission is a continuous and on going process and the constitutional rights of equal opportunity for employment of candidates, who qualify subsequently will have to be honoured and respected and further that the shortlist shall not exceed twice or thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up. So also, no proper appreciation of factual aspects has been made by the Tribunal in order to arrive at the conclusion that the PSC has not made any reasonable assessment O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 81 of the vacancies likely to arise. From para Nos.2 to 60, given on internal pages 2 to 41 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has dealt with the factual submissions of the applicants regarding the details of the number of vacancies reported at various points of time, especially after the finalization of the shortlist, etc. Thereafter, in para No.61, the Tribunal straightaway reached the abovesaid impugned conclusion at hand. No appreciation of factual aspects of the case has been made in order to give proper reasonings for arriving at the conclusion that the PSC has not made any reasonable assessment of the vacancies likely to arise. In view of the above aspects, we are of the considered view that the reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal would deserve interdiction at the hands of this Court. We will give more reasonings regarding the factual aspects at a later stage. This is all the more so since the abovesaid approach made by the Tribunal is plainly against the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Ravidas' case supra [2009 (2) KLT 295(FB) as well as in a series of judgments rendered by this Court mentioned herein above, which include Division Bench and Single Bench decisions. We would deal with more aspects in the factual case at a later stage.

49. Now, we would deal with the factual details pertaining to each of the 7 districts involved in this case. In all these cases, it O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 82 appears that the written examination was held on 21.1.2017 and the PSC had taken decision regarding the size of the respective shortlist on 3.7.2017.

(i) Kannur district:- (a) The total number of advices per year made from the previous ranked in that case is 30. The vacancies are shown as "not estimated" in the instant selection notification. 2055 candidates have appeared in the instant written examination held on 21.1.2017. No vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC as on the date on which it had taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist on 3.7.2017. Shortlist was published on 24.1.2018, at which point of time, 74 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC. The shortlist consisted of 655 candidates, comprising of 300 candidates in the main list, 336 candidates in the supplementary list and 19 candidates in the disabled candidates (DA) quota. The marks of the last ranking candidate, included in the main list of the shortlist in Kannur District, was 34.67. The ranked list was published on 28.12.2018 consisting of altogether of 610 candidates, of which 293 have been included in the main list and 317 in the supplementary list. At the time when the ranked list was published on 28.12.2018, O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 83 altogether 160 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC.

(b) In Kannur District ranked list has not been exhausted and the last advice was made on 4.1.2022 and candidates with ranks up to 242 in the main list have been advised in OC (open competition) turn and 36 candidates are remaining in the main list even now. Further, 420 candidates have already been advised from the present ranked list, which came into force on 28.12.2018 and thus the advices per year made from this list is around 140 per year. It is further seen that no vacancies are pending and remaining unutilized by the PSC and the ranked list is still not exhausted and is in operation and the maximum 3 year period is upto 27.12.2021. Further, it also appears that the PSC has already issued fresh selection notification for the post of LPSA in all the districts concerned on 31.12.2019 and the written examination has been conducted on 24.11.2020 and interview has also been conducted on 17.3.2022.

(c) It has to be noted that the candidates included both in the main list and supplementary list of the shortlist could be reckoned in this process and no candidate can legally demand that the number of candidates included in the main list of the shortlist should be three O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 84 times the number of vacancies likely to arise. The main relevant aspect is that the shortlist should not contain more than twice or, at the most, thrice the number of vacancies likely to arise and should not be as if the shortlist would contain a minimum of 3 to 5 times the number of vacancies. The relevant ratio in that regard may be between the number of vacancies likely to arise and and the number of candidates who have appeared in the written examination. But it may not be out of place to compare the ratio between the number of candidates who have taken part in the examination and the number of candidates included in the shortlist. So, it can be seen that 300 candidates out of the 2055 candidates, who appeared in the written examination, have been included in the shortlist, ie. around 14.5 per cent.

(d) 655 candidates, who have partaken in the written examination out of 2055, have been included in the shortlist and so, roughly about 32 per cent of the candidates, who have appeared in the written examination, have been included in the main list. The total number of advices per year made from the previous ranked list is 30, whereas in the instant case, the ranked list, containing 610 candidates out of the 655 candidates included in the shortlist, have now been utilized for advising altogether 420 candidates and thus, the number of candidates advised per year presently is around 140. Even the 3 year O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 85 currency period of the ranked list dated 28.12.2018 has expired on 27.1.2021 and even then, 36 candidates have remained unadvised from the main list and the ranked list has already been cancelled. Fresh selection notification has already been set in motion and even the written test and interview have also been duly completed and what is awaited is the next shortlist and the ranked list. The abovesaid facts in question would clearly indicate that, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned shortlisting process of the PSC, pertaining to Kannur district, is in any manner remotely illegal or arbitrary or that the size of the mainlist or the shortlist is unreasonably low. So on these aspects, the challenge made as against the shortlist for Kannur district thoroughly fails. These aspects would manifestly and clearly show that the Tribunal has not made any prudent and careful examination of the relevant aspects of the matter and has mechanically arrived at the conclusion. So the matter has to be interdicted by this Court, in any view of the matter.

(ii) Kasargod district:

(a) The number of advices per year, made from the previous ranked list is 33. The instant selection notification dated 10.9.2014 has clearly shown that the number of vacancies notified is "not estimated".

1453 candidates had appeared in the written examination. Only 23 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 86 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC at the time of the impugned decision (3.7.2017). The shortlist was published on 31.1.2018. Altogether 179 vacancies have been reported and are pending with the PSC. The shortlist consisted of 721 candidates, comprising of 299 candidates in the main list, 410 candidates in the supplementary list and 12 in the DA list. The marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list is 32.67. The ranked list, published on 31.12.2018 consisted of 696 candidates, inclusive of 294 in the main list and 391 in the supplementary list and 11 in the DA list.. By the time the ranked list was published on 28.12.2018, altogether 359 vacancies were reported and pending. The last ranking candidate in the main list of the ranked list was advised on 10.2.2020 and the list has thus become inoperative due to its exhaustion. So, it appears that the ranked list was operated for the period from 28.12.2018 upto 10.2.2020, roughly about 13 and a half months. Altogether 542 candidates have been advised from the ranked list, consisting of 299 candidates in the main list and 410 from the supplementary list and so the number of advices per year made from the present ranked list is

465. This has to be compared with the number of advices made per year for the previous ranked list, which was only 33. The number of vacancies reported and remaining unutilized, at the time of the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 87 exhaustion of the ranked list on 10.2.2020 is, 25 vacancies. Even otherwise, the maximum 3 year period of the list has expired on 28.12.2021. Now, altogether, 136 vacancies and 16 anticipatory vacancies due in 2022 have been reported and pending, for which fresh selection notification has been issued. The written test has been conducted on 24.11.2020 and interview process is said to be ongoing. There cannot be any dispute that the two vital parameters of number of advices made from the previous ranked list and the number of vacancies reported and pending at the time of the decision have been certainly taken into account. The only other issue is as to whether the PSC has made a reasonable exercise of assessment, regarding the chances of occurrence of vacancy. General aspects of the matter, in relation to all the districts will be dealt with separately hereinafter. But, having regard to these facts and figures, it can be seen that, when the total number of advices made per year from the previous ranked list was only 33 and the total advices per year made to the present ranked list is 465 and altogether 542 candidates have already been advised from the ranked list, having a main list of 299 candidates and supplementary list of 410 candidates and 12 candidates in the DA list, we are, even otherwise, of the firm view that the shortlist cannot be said to be disproportionately l0w or having unreasonably small size. It O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 88 has to be borne in mind that these facts and figures would clearly show that any reasonable person, be it an expert or lay person, can only reach the conclusion that the basic objectives of the selection process have been, optimally or even more effectively, met in the present selection process and the selection process was able to advise altogether 542 candidates and the advices per year is 465. Moreover, the selection process is a continuing and ongoing one and the rights of newly qualified candidates have to be enforced, as is constitutionally guaranteed and even the new selection process has already been set in motion and after the written test, the interview process was ongoing, at the time of hearing these cases in March, 2022.

(b) In the light of the abovesaid aspects, this Court is of the firm view that the verdict of the Tribunal, pertaining to Kasargod district, is seriously flawed and vitiated, which would deserve supervisory interdiction.

(iii) Kollam district.

The total number of advices per year made from the previous ranked list, is 91. Vacancies were shown as not-estimated in the selection notification. 2763 candidates have taken the written test and only 33 vacancies were reported, when the PSC had taken the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 89 impugned decision on 3.7.2017. The shortlist was formally published on 30.12.2017, on which day also the abovesaid 33 vacancies alone were pending. The shortlist comprises of altogether 1295 candidates, comprising of 410 candidates in the main list, 871 candidates in the supplementary list and 14 candidates in the DA list. The marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the shortlist is 44.67. It can be seen that roughly about 47 % of the candidates, who have taken the test, have been included in the shortlist and about 15% of the test appeared candidates have been included in the main list of the said short list. The ranked list was published on 28.12.2018, comprising of totally 1222 candidates, out of which 404 candidates are included in the main list, 804 are in the supplementary list and 14 are in the DA list. Further, crucially, only 33 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC at the time of the impugned decision on 3.7.2017 and those 33 reported vacancies alone were pending even at the time of the publication of the shortlist on 30.12.2017. It is thereafter that, altogether, about 200 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC, at the time when the ranked list was published on 28.12.2018. The last ranking candidate in the main list was advised, from the ranked list dated 28.12.2018, on 26.8.2021. We are given to understand, on the basis of the provisional appointment chart issued O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 90 by the PSC, as made available by the applicants that the candidates upto rank No.402 in the main list were advised, as against available vacancies, on 5.6.2020 and further that candidates upto the penultimate rank No.401 was advised on 26.8.2021, as against the vacancy requisition report received on 23.10.2020. Further that, the actual advice of the last ranking candidate could not be effected, only in view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, to prevent the exhaustion of the ranked list and hence, it has been urged before us, on behalf of the applicants, that but for the interim order, the last advice could have been made upto December, 2020, instead of 26.8.2021. Hence, it is urged that, though technically the actual advice process of the last ranking candidate could only take place on 26.8.2021, the exhaustion of the ranked list should be seen as happened in December, 2020, but for the interim order. Hence, it is pointed out before us that the ranked list dated 28.12.2018 could be operated only for two years. To avoid any controversy, we would proceed on that factual premise. But the total advices altogether made from the ranked list dated 28.12.2018, consisting of 410 candidates in the main list and 871 candidates in the supplementary list and 14 in the DA list, is 495 and advices per year is 186. The reported vacancies, which are pending and remaining unutilized, at the time when the turn of the last ranking O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 91 candidate in the main list had arisen for advice, is 37. The 3 year period of the ranked list has, even otherwise, expired on 27.12.2021, at which point of time the total vacancies reported and pending is 156. The fresh selection notification has already been issued and written test was conducted on 24.11.2020 and interview process is ongoing since March 2022. Here also, there cannot be any dispute, regarding the proper consideration of the first two parameters, i.e. the number of advices from the previous list and the number of vacancies reported and pending with the PSC, was only 33 vacancies. As already noted, 46 % of the test taken candidates have been included in the main list for the purpose of interview and the ranked list, consisting of 404 candidates in the main list and 804 candidates in the supplementary list, etc. could be utilized for advising altogether 495 candidates. Altogether, 495 candidates have already been advised and the number of advices per year is 186. In contradistinction to that, the total number of advices per year that could be made from the previous list, which was in vogue for four and half long years, out of 409 candidates, was 91. It has to be borne in mind that the main purpose of shortlisting is to restrict the number of candidates who have taken written test for the purpose of calling for interview, as otherwise, the interview process would be unwieldly and cumbersome and it will O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 92 affect the very orderly process of evaluation in the interview process. When altogether 47% of the test taken candidates has been included in the shortlist, will it be reasonable and proper for a judicial review court to direct further expansion of the shortlist and ranked list. True that, relevant ratio is as between the number of candidates and the number of vacancies likely to arise. But this Court may not be able to turn a Nelson's eye to the abovesaid crucial aspects and that, altogether 47% of the candidates have already been shortlisted by the PSC, for the purpose of interview. The concept of reasonableness and fairness should be adjudged not only from the point of view of legalism and legalistic perspectives, but should also be appealing to any reasonable lay person in a scenario like the present one. True that, the ranked list could effectively be in operation only for a period upto 3 years. But the minimum assured life span of the list is only one year and thereafter, the PSC is at liberty to publish the next list at any time and the outer time limit of 3 years is only an intergennum. We would separately deal with the aspects relating to the chance of occurrence of vacancy, as per the staff fixation process, in the latter part of this judgment. But even on the case of these aspects, taking into account all those aspects, the conclusion that we can safely arrive at is that the Tribunal has not acted within the limitations of the power of judicial review, in rendering O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 93 the above verdict, even in regard to the interference made to the matters relating to Kollam District. The selection process has already been set in motion and after the written test, interview process was ongoing in March, 2022. For all these reasons, the cases relating to Kollam district would also be amenable for interdiction of this Court.

(iv) Malappuram district:

(a) 220 candidates per year have been advised from the previous ranked list, which was in vogue for a period of four and a half years, from which altogether 991 candidates were advised. 9584 candidates have taken the written test. Vacancies were shown as "not-

estimated" in the selection notification. 186 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC, on the day on which the PSC took the impugned decision on 3.7.2017. The shortlist, formally published on 23.1.2018, consisted of 3461 candidates, out of which 1001 candidates are in the main list and 2460 are in the supplementary list. By the time the shortlist was formally published on 23.1.2018, altogether 191 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC. The marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the shortlist is 42.67. So it can be seen that the first two parameters, based on the number of advices made previously, which is only 220 per year and the number of pending reported vacancies (186), have been certainly taken note of in O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 94 preparing the shortlist of 3461 candidates, in which 1001 are included in the main list. Even if it is assumed that it is the size of the main list of the shortlist, that is to be reckoned, still it can be seen that the main list is about 4.5 times the number of previous advices made per year. So, there cannot be any dispute regarding the consideration and reckoning of the first two parameters in question. Altogether, 3292 candidates have been included in the list published on 28.12.2018, out of which 983 are in the main list and 2309 are in the supplementary list. By the time the list was published on 28.12.2018, altogether 908 vacancies were reported. The turn of the last ranking candidate in the main list is said to have been advised on 23.1.2021 and his turn for advice had actually arisen on 2.12.2019, upon which the list has exhausted. So, the list was practically operative for a period of one year. Altogether, 1181 candidates have been advised from the ranked list and the number of advices per year is 1181. The balance vacancies pending with the PSC, at that time were 397, the maximum 3 year period of the list has otherwise expired on 28.12.2021, at which point of time, altogether 615 vacancies were pending and remained unadvised. Interview was ongoing after the written test conducted in November 2021 for the next selection notification issued on 31.12.2019. Incidentally, it can be seen that about 36% of the test O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 95 appeared candidates have been included in the shortlist for interview by the PSC. The aspects relating to consideration of the third parameter in question, regarding assessment of chance of occurrence of vacancy, will be dealt with later. We are of the view that it cannot be said that the decision taken by the PSC in regard to the assessment of the chances of occurrence of vacancies in future, when it made the decision on 3.7.2017, cannot be said to be perverse or highly unreasonable, for the reasons especially in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for which separate reasons will be given later.

(b) That apart, when only 991 candidates could be advised from the previous ranked list, which was in vogue for four and a half long years, it has to be borne in mind that 1181 candidates could be advised from the present list and the list could be operated roughly for a period of one year. The next selection notification has been set in motion long ago.

(v) Kozhikode District:

(a) 179 candidates have been advised. The previous ranked list was in vogue for a period of 4 and a half years, pursuant to which 179 candidates were totally advised from the said ranked list and the advised candidates from the previous select list was 40. 3103 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 96 candidates have taken the test. The notified vacancies shown in the selection notification were as "not-estimated". Only 21 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC as on 3.7.2017. The shortlist of 745 candidates was published on 15.2.2018, out of which 299 candidates were in the main list, 438 were in the supplementary list and 8 were in the DA list. The marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the shortlist was 37.33. Since the above number of vacancies reported and pending with the PSC at the time of the impugned decision on 3.7.2017 was 21 and as the number of advices per year for the previous selection was 40, it is only to be held that the first two norms have been duly taken into account in preparing the ranked list. The ranked list was published on 28.12.2018, consisting of totally 719 candidates, inclusive of 295 in the main list, 416 in the supplementary list and 8 in the DA list. At the time of finalization of the ranked list on 28.12.2018, altogether 326 vacancies were reported and pending. The turn of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the ranked list for advice arose on 16.11.2019, even though the actual advice was made only on 24.3.2021. So, due to exhaustion of the main list of the ranked list, the list was operated only for about 11 months. But the total number of advices from the said ranked list is 385 and the advice per year is thus

385. Altogether 71 reported vacancies were remaining and unutilized O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 97 for advice as on the exhaustion of the list. At the time when the 3 year period of the ranked list had otherwise expired on 27.12.2021 and at that time, the total pending vacancies were 140, the next selection process has been set in motion and the interview has already been duly completed on 24.3.2022, in pursuance of the written test held on 24.11.2020.

(b) We would give separate reasonings for coming to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the PSC's decision making process in the assessment of the times of occurrence of vacancies is unreasonable or highly capricious. So also, the judicial review is not called for in respect of the shortlisting process in this district (Kozhikode) in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas' case supra [2009 (2) KLT 295(FB)] as well as the other decisions cited herein above. When only 179 advices could be made from the previous list, which was in vogue for a period of four and a half years, and the number of advices per year in the previous occasion was only 40, it cannot be said that the operation of the present list has not met with the optimal objectives of the selection process, inasmuch as altogether 385 candidates could be duly advised from the ranked list, comprising of 295 candidates in the main list, 416 candidates in the supplementary list, etc. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 98

(vi) Thrissur District:

Only 31 candidates could be advised from the previous ranked list, which was current for four and half years upto 13.6.2016 and so the number of advices per year in the previous occasion was only seven. Number of vacancies notified in the present selection process is shown as "not-estimated". 1702 candidates have taken the written test held on 21.1.2017. Only 18 vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC when it had taken the impugned decision on 3.7.2017. Shortlist was formally published on 12.3.2018, at which point of time, vacancies even then pending was only altogether 18. 250 candidates have been duly included in the shortlist published on 12.3.2018, in which 150 are included in the main list, 94 in the supplementary list and 6 in the DA list. The marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the shortlist is 38.33. Taking note of the aspect that the number of advices per year for the previous selection was only 7 and still further, total number of advices that could be made for four and a half years was only 31 in the previous ranked list as well as the number of vacancies reported and pending as on 3.7.2017 was only 18, there cannot be any doubt that the first two norms in question have been duly taken into account by the PSC. The ranked list was published on 6.9.2018 consisting of 240 candidates, out of which 148 are included O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 99 in the main list, 87 in the supplementary list and 5 in the DA list. The number of vacancies reported and pending at the time of finalization of the ranked list on 6.9.2018 was 118. The last ranking candidate was advised on 27.2.2021, as against the vacancies reported on 16.8.2019.

It is pointed out that the PSC has stated that 100 vacancies were reported on 16.8.2019, which was in obedience to the interim order of the Tribunal, not to advise the last ranking candidate in the main list. So the effective date of exhaustion of the ranked list would be reckoned in this case as 16.8.2019 and the ranked list has been in effective operation for about 11 months. Altogether 260 candidates have been advised from the present ranked list and so the advices per year is 260. 128 reported vacancies were pending from the time the turn of the last ranking candidate arose or advised on 16.8.2019. 3 year maximum period has otherwise expired on 5.9.2021, at which point of time, 168 vacancies were totally pending and remaining for advice. The interview process was ongoing in March, 2022, pursuant to the written test held on 24.11.2020, for the next selection process set in motion on 31.12.2019. For the reasons to be stated separately hereinafter, we are of the view that the decision making process of the PSC, for assessment of the third norm relating to chances of occurrence of vacancies in future, cannot be said to be vitiated by unreasonableness or O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 100 capriciousness. That apart, when the ranked list could be put in operation for about 11 months, by advising altogether 260 candidates from the raked list having 150 candidates in the main list, 94 candidates in the supplementary list and 6 candidates in the DA list, it is only to be held that the broad objectives of the selection process have been optimally met in the impugned selection process and taking into account the constitutional rights for equal opportunity for public employment of candidates qualified later and also taking into account the dictum laid down in the aforecited decisions and also for separate reasons to be given hereinafter, we are of the view that the verdict would deserve interdiction in this case as well.

(vii) Palakkad District:

For the previous selection in Palakkad District, altogether 279 candidates were advised from the ranked list, which was in currency for four and a half years and so the number of previous advices made per year was 62. Notified vacancies were shown as "not-estimated" in the present selection process. 2710 candidates have taken the written test held on 21.1.2017, 36 fresh vacancies were reported and pending with the PSC, when it had taken the impugned decision on 3.7.2017. The shortlist was duly published on 14.2.2018, consisting of 1020 candidates therein, inclusive of 405 in the main list and 615 in the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 101 supplementary list. Taking into account the fact that the number of advices made per year is 62, and the number of vacancies pending at the time of the interview process was only 36, it is only to be held that here also the first two norms have been duly taken into consideration. The marks of the last ranking candidate in the main list of the shortlist was 37. Roughly about 38% of the candidates, who have taken the test, have been included in the shortlist of 1020 candidates. In the ranked list, totally containing 961 candidates, published on 28.12.2018, 396 are in the main list and 565 are in the supplementary list. The number of vacancies reported and pending at the time of the list finalization was 194. The turn of the last ranking candidate in the main list arose on 25.9.2021 and altogether 533 candidates have been advised from the present ranked list and the advices made per year is 194. The ranked list could thus be operated for about three months short of the actual currency period of 3 years. Only 16 vacancies were pending unutilized at the time of the exhaustion of the list on 25.9.2021. Outer time limit of 3 years of the ranked list has otherwise fallen on 27.12.2021 and even at that time, only 16 vacancies were totally remaining unadvised. Interview process has been completed on 24.3.2022, after the conduct of the written test on 24.11.2020, in pursuance of the next selection process notified by the PSC on O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 102 31.12.2019. Here also, taking into account the advices made from the previous ranked list and the number of reported vacancies pending with the PSC as on 3.7.2017, it is only to be held that the first two norms have been broadly reckoned in the preparation of the size of the shortlist. For the reasons to be delineated subsequently, we are of the view that the third norm is also satisfied in this case. More crucially, the list has been put in operation for a long period, which is three months short of the maximum 3 year currency period when the minimum assured life span is only one year. Taking into account the rights of the future qualified candidates as well as the dictum laid down in the aforecited decisions and also for the reasons to be separately given, we are of the view that the decision making process of the PSC in deciding about the size of the shortlist in this case could not have been interfered in judicial review process. When 38% of the test taken candidates have been included in the shortlist of 1020 candidates for the purpose of interview and the broad objectives of the selection have been met and this could be operated for quite a long period as above, the Tribunal could not have interfered in the matter, if various crucial and relevant aspects of the matter have been duly and prudently taken into account and if due adherence had been made to the principles relating to limitation on the power of judicial review. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 103

50. Matters relating to the consideration of the third norm relating to the assessment of chances of occurrence of vacancies in future:

The main contentions urged by the applicants are to the effect that there was a drastic change in the pupil-teacher ratio in view of the mandate in the Central RTE Act, which was directed to be enforced as per the verdict of this Court rendered on 17.12.2015 in W.P. (C).No.19008/2013 and connected cases [2016 KHC 118]. Further that, the State Government and the Director of Public Instructions have issued G.O.(Ms).No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.1.2016 and DPI circular dated 20.6.2017, for compliance of the said verdict. It is thus, urged by the applicants that, though the staff fixation process for the academic year 2017-18 was not finalised at the time the PSC had taken the impugned decision on 3.7.2017, it should have been certainly in the contemplation of the PSC and the Departmental authorities concerned that there would have been a drastic increase in the number of vacancies, which were likely to arise in the next three years or even for the next one year and that the PSC should have made effective steps for assessment of chances of occurrence of vacancies in the future. That the PSC has miserably failed to do so and that the PSC has mechanically taken the decision in the matter, without having any O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 104 concern for the vital third parameter as above. That this would vitiate the decision making process of the PSC. The Tribunal has proceeded on this premise and granted the relief. No dispute has been raised by any of the applicants that at the time when the selection notification was issued on 10.9.2014, vacancies notified therein was shown as "not-estimated". So also there is no dispute about the number of vacancies which were reported and pending with the PSC when it has taken the impugned decision regarding the size of the shortlist on 3.7.2017. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding the advices made from the previous ranked list. We have repeatedly queried to the applicants as to when exactly the departmental authorities have finalised the staff fixation process for 2017-18.

51. It is elementary that the matters relating to reporting of vacancies are exclusively within the province and domain of the appointing authority/departmental authorities concerned/ Government. So also, the PSC is not in a position to, in any manner, direct the departmental authorities to report vacancies. That would be an intrusion into the province of the appointing authority. True that the PSC has to make an exercise of assessment of chances of occurrence of vacancies in future, going by the third norm contained in para No.1 of circular dated 1.12.2003. We have repeatedly queried to O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 105 the applicants and the departmental authorities as to when exactly the staff fixation process for the academic year 2017-18 was finalised. True that the statute mandates that the staff fixation is to be made effective from 15th of July of the academic year concerned. Despite consistent queries on various occasions during the process of hearing of these cases, we could not get any satisfactory answer in that regard. On the other hand, we could see from the pleadings and materials on record that, as per Ext.R-32D [G.O.(Ms).No. 134/2016/G.Edn. dated 5.8.2016] produced along with the affidavit dated 25.3.2022 filed by contesting respondent Nos.32 to 36 in O.P(KAT) No. 319/2020, the Government has ordered, as per para 4 thereof, that the staff fixation for the academic year 2015-16, will be applicable for the academic year 2016-17 as well. In other words, it appears that the Government has specifically directed therein that independent and separate staff fixation process for 2016-17 need not be done and staff fixation for the previous 2015-16 academic year is to be reckoned as the staff fixation for 2016-17. So also, Smt.Molty Majeed, learned Advocate appearing for contesting respondent Nos.32 to 36 in O.P(KAT) No. 319/2020 would submit that Ext.R-32E G.O.(Ms).No. 149/2017/G.Edn. dated 22.11.2017 [produced in the said affidavit in O.P(KAT) No. 319/2020] would show that, even at that time, the staff fixation process for 2017- O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 106 18 was not finalised, etc. We specifically queried to the applicants and the departmental authorities regarding this and we could not get any proper response in that regard. However, a reading of the said Ext.R- 32E G.O.(Ms).No. 149/2017/ G.Edn. Dated 22.11.2017, would show that the Government has ordered therein, as per para 2(i) thereof, that the staff fixation process for 2016-17 should be completed on the basis of the number of students disclosed, as per the Unique Identification Authority of India (UID), within one month from the date of that GO, i.e., one month from 22.11.2017. Further, it is ordered as per para 2(2) thereof, that the process of deployment of protected teachers should be pursuant to the staff fixation process for the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-18, etc. To have a better understanding, it may be pertinent to refer to the contents of the abovesaid Ext.R-32E, G.O.(Ms).No. 149/2017/G.Edn. dated 22.11.2017, which reads as follows:

"ക രള സർക ർ സ ഗഹ 2016-17 വർഷത തസ നർണയ ., തസ നഷ ത ട സ രക ത അദ പ രത പനർവന സ എന വ സ ബനച നർക(ശങൾ പറത ടവച - ഉ രവ കന.

തപ തവ( ഭ സ (ത3) വക സ . ഉ (ക ) ന . 149 /2017 / തപ വവ തരവനനപര , ത6യത 22/11/ 2017

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- പര മർശ :-1. 29-1-2016- ത8 സ.ഉ (പ ) ന .29/2016 /തപ വവ നമർ സർക ർ ഉ രവ O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 107

2. 05-08-2016- ത8 സ.ഉ (പ ) ന 134/2016 / തപ വവ നമർ സർക ർ ഉ രവ

3. 3-12-2016-ത8 സ.ഉ (പ ) ന . 199/2016/ തപ വവ നമർ സർക ർ ഉ രവ

4. WP (C) ന .1356/2017 ത ങ യ ക സ ള ൽ ബഹ. കഹകക തയത 11-10-2017 - ത8 വധന യ .

                                         ഉ    രവ

              2011-12     മതൽ 2015-16        വതരയള അധ യന വർഷങള ത8 തസ നർണയ ,
     അ( പ നയമന ഗ6 ര , അദ പ          സ രകണ ത ങ യവ സ ബനച പര മർശ (1) പ ര
     ഉ   രവ യരന.      ഇതനസരച      തസ നർണയ           പർ   യ യക ൾ     തസ      നഷത ടത
     സ രകണ ർഹതയളതമ യ അദ പ തര പനർവന സകനതന കവണ അദ പ                        ബ ങ രപ6 രച
     ശ സ6യമ യ സ രകണവ വസ ത ണവരനതതO                   ഭ ഗമ യ 2015-16 വർഷത            തസ
     നർണയ ഉ     രവ തതന 2016-17 വർഷക          യ ബ ധ മ കയ അദ പ         സ രകണ         നയ
     ച8 വ വസ ൾ ഏർത ട          യ പര മർശ (2) പ ര ഉ         രവ യരന. ത ർന പര മർശ (1)
     പ രമള ഉ        രവ തയതയ യ 29-01-2016 പ ബ8            ൽ വര     കവധ അദ പ         ബങ
     രപ6 രച കത മ യ പനർവന സ വ വസ ൾ ഏർത ട               യ പര മർശ (3) പ രമള ത .ഇ .
     ആർ . കഭ(ഗത എസ . ആർ . ഓ 752/2016 ആയ പസദയരക യണ യ .
              എന ൽ, ന 8 മത പര മർശച ക          ത ഉ     രവ പ ര    2016-17     വർഷത
     തസ നർണയ         നക   ണ    സ ഹചര      സ 3 തമ യടളതന ൽ        2016-17     വർഷത
     തസ നർണയ സ ബനച തസ നഷ തപടത                      പര മർശ (1) ഉ    രവത8 ഖണ          (1)
     പ ര സ രകണ          ന അർഹതയളതമ യ അദ പ രത പനർവന സ എന വ സ ബനച
     ചവത കചർകന മ ർഗ നർക]ശങൾ പറത ടവകന.

         1.     2016-17 വർഷത       തസ        നർണയ 6-ആ സ ധ യ( വസ           ൽ കറ ള ലള
                കട ളത യ. ഐ . ഡ . യത അ സ ന                ൽ പർ     യ ക ഒര മ സ       ന
                ഉ   രവ നൽക ണത ണ.
         2.    ഒന മതൽ എട വതര ക സ ള ൽ ആർ . ഡ . ഇ ആക 2009 ത8 തഷഡfൾ
               അനസരച , ഒൻപത, പ           ക സ ളൽ ത        . ഇ . ആർ അ സ ന            ലമ ണ
               തസ നർണയ ന ക        ണത .
         3.    അപ ര നർണയകതപട തസ              ള ൽ ന 8 മത പര മർശ പ ര ബഹ. കഹകക ത
               ന8നർ     യ പര മർശ (3) പ രമള എസ ആർ ഓ 752/2016 ത8 ത ഇ ആർ
               അദ യ XXI ത8 ചട 7 കഭ(ഗതക വകധയമ യ നയമന ഗ6 ര നൽ                    .
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases            108


          4.     2016-17 , 2017-2018 തസ         നർണയ ഉ    രവതO അ സ ന    ൽ തസ
                  നഷത ടത , പര മർശ (1) ഉ   രവ പ ര സ രകണ ർഹതയളതമ യ അദ പ തര
                  പര മർശ (3) ഉ   രവതO അ സ ന     8 യരകണ പനർവന സ ന ക      ണത.
          5.      പര മർശ (2) പ ര ത ത      8 മ യ പനർവന സകതപട അദ പ തര പ ൻവ8 ച
                  എയഡഡ സള ള ൽ സ രക തഅ( പ ർക യ            ന6കതവചടള സര ഒഴവ ള ൽ
                  വഷയ നപ തകമ     പ 8 ചനയമകകണത    ഇ   ര   ലള   സ രകണ    പർ    യക
                  നതവതര പര മർശ (2) പ രമള സ രകണവ വസ ത ര വനതമ ണ .
                                                         (ഗവർണരത ഉ    രവന പ ര )
                                                               ത കഗ പ 8കഷ ഭട
                                                              സതപഷ ൽ തസകടറ
     പ ർ
     തപ തവ( ഭ സ ഡയറകർ, തരവനനപര .
     എല വ( ഭ സ ഉപ ഡയറകമ ർക , 3ല/ഉപ3ല വ( ഭ സ
                 ഓഫ6സർമ ർക (തപ തവ( ഭ സ ഡയറകർ മകഖന )
     പൻസ ൽ അകrണO 3നറൽ (ആ ഡറ) , ക രള, തരവനനപര
     എക fട6വ ഡയറകർ, ഐ റ @ സൾ, തരവനനപര
     (തവബ കസറൽ പസദ6 രകനതന)
     പബ        റക8ഷൻസ (തവബ & നfമ6ഡയ ) വക
     (തവബ കസറൽ പസദ6 രകനതന )
      രതൽ ഫയൽ / ഓഫ6സ ക
                                                              ഉ   രവന പ ര
                                                                 ഒ
                                                              തസകൻ ഓഫ6സർ"

52. Para 1 of Ext.R-32E GO dated 22.11.2017 refers to the previous order at Ext.R-32D GO dated 5.8.2016, which ordered for the applicability of the staff fixation for 2015-16 even for the academic year 2016-17, etc. It is thereafter that it is ordered, as per para 2 of Ext.R- 32E G.O. dated 22.11.2017, more particularly as per para 2(1) thereof, that the staff fixation process for 2016-17 should be finalised based on the data for the sixth working day of the students on the roll, as O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 109 disclosed from UID, etc. A reading of Ext.R-32E G.O. dated 22.11.2017 would thus indicate that the staff fixation process for 2016-17 was ordered to be finalised, for the first time within one month from 22.11.2017 and so, the said time limit for the previous academic year 2016-17 itself was upto 22.12.2017. There is no specific and explicit mention as to when the staff fixation process for 2017-18 has to be commenced or when it will be finalised, etc. However, para 2(4) of Ext.R-32E G.O. dated 22.11.2017 would show that the Government has ordered that the process of deployment of protected teachers should be considered, pursuant to the staff fixation orders for the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18. So, based on the limited data made available before us, we are constrained to make an inference that even the fixation order for 2016-17 was not earlier independently done, in view of Ext.R-32D GO dated 5.8.2016. For the first time, the staff fixation process for 2016-17 was ordered to be completed, as per the new norm, within one month from 22.11.2017. Since staff fixation for 2016-17 was not previously done and the same has been ordered to be done only within one month from 22.11.2017, we have to infer that the staff fixation for 2017-18 was not done previously and could have been done only subsequent to the completion of the staff fixation process for 2016-17 or even much thereafter. True that, the pupil-teacher ratio has been O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 110 drastically altered by the Central RTE Act, which was directed to be enforced as per the verdict given by this Court on 17.12.2015 in the above writ proceedings and the Government and the DPI had issued proceedings on 29.1.2016 and 20.6.2017 for compliance of those norms. But the state of affairs appeared to be in a state of flux even thereafter and even the staff fixation process for 2016-17 would have been completed only by end of December, 2017 or much thereafter or so. The staff fixation process for 2017-18 could have been done only much thereafter or coterminous with that of 2016-17.

53. We had also repeatedly queried to the applicants and the departmental authorities as to the norms for the staff fixation process in Government schools. True that the amended provisions of the KER, as per Chapter XXIII thereof, are applicable to the fixation of strength of teachers in both departmental schools (Government schools) as well as aided schools. A reading of the abovesaid judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No. 19008/2013 [reported in 2016 KHC 118], more particularly paras 49, 50, 51 and 82 thereof, etc. would also indicate that new and fresh norms have been made as per the KER, more particularly as per Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII KER, whereby the determination of the student strength is on the basis of UID of the pupils, which is to be uploaded on the 6 th working day and this has to O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 111 be verified with the data between 7th to 15th June by the DEO and AEO so as to certify by 15 th July, by which time, fixation of staff strength of each school should be finalised. There was also a drastic change in the norms for staff fixation process, by incorporating online process and UID mechanism, instead of the previous unamended norms of physical verification of student strength and also other repeated re- verification process. However, it is seen from a reading of the judgment as well as the provisions of the Rules that, even now, the scrutiny of the staff fixation by higher officers is permitted by the other provisions of Chapter XXIII, more particularly Rule 12C thereof, and also re-fixation on the ground that bogus admission as per Rule 15 thereof and based on inquiry report and super check under Rule 16, which all comes under Chapter XXIII KER. However, we wanted to be apprised of a position as to the real official process, which gives the final imprimatur to staff fixation at least the proceedings, before the scrutiny of staff fixation by higher officers or re-fixation, etc. Some of the learned Advocates, appearing for the applicants, have apprised us that lower primary schools come under the Assistant Educational Officers and this process has to be finalised and collated by the AEOs and then given to the respective DEOs of the district concerned, who in turn may have to give it to the Deputy Director of Education of the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 112 District concerned, who is the head of the Department of Education of the district concerned. In the absence of any clear answer to our repeated queries, as to when the staff fixation process for 2017-18 was finalised for the first time at least in the 7 districts, to which we did not get any satisfactory answer, we are constrained to infer that the actual process of staff fixation for 2017-2018 could have been finalised only after December, 2017 or so. We wanted to be clear about this position, because, if the staff fixation process was actually finalised by July, 2017 or immediately thereafter or within a reasonable time thereafter, then only the PSC could have been faulted for not ascertaining the scenario. Assuming that the PSC authorities had endeavoured to ascertain about the staff fixation details from the respective educational authorities in each of the 7 districts and if no data were available with the departmental authorities concerned, then there cannot be any question of putting the blame on the PSC for not properly assessing the chances of occurrence of vacancies in future. The state of affairs were in a flux, due to various proceedings, as can be seen from a reading of the abovesaid verdict of the learned Single Judge, reported in 2016 KHC 118, as well as various Government orders and circulars mentioned herein above. The broad inference that we can make is that the staff fixation process for 2017-18 would have O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 113 been finalised at a later stage. If the staff fixation process has been finalised by July, 2017 itself, then the PSC could have effectively ascertained the question in that regard. In a situation like this, it may not be reasonable to conclude that PSC has not properly assessed the abovesaid parameters. It is all the more so, since matters relating to staff fixation process, sanction of vacancies and reporting of vacancies are exclusively within the domain and province of the education departmental authorities concerned. The PSC has no role or power to even remotely instruct the departmental authorities to report vacancies. Precisely, it is in view of these aspects that the number of vacancies that were reported to the PSC as on 3.7.2017 and immediately thereafter were on the lower scale.

54. In all the Districts, the vacancies were shown as "not- estimated" in the selection notification. For instance, in Malappuram District, the number of vacancies reported as on 3.7.2017 was only 186. Only 5 more additional vacancies were reported, but shortlist was formally published on 23.1.2018, with the result that the total number of reported pending vacancies by then was 191. More vacancies have been reported to the PSC only much later, when the ranked list was published on 28.12.2018. The abovesaid data provided by the PSC would show that altogether 908 vacancies reported were pending with O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 114 the PSC at the time of finalization of the ranked list on 28.12.2018, out of which 191 were previously reported. So the additional vacancies reported by December, 2018, was 717 (908 - 191 = 717).

55. As regards Kasargod district, it can be seen that only 23 vacancies were pending with the PSC, as on 3.7.2017 and the total number of vacancies reported by formal publication of the shortlist on 31.1.2018, was 179. Later, the total number of reported vacancies pending by 28.12. 2018 (publication of the ranked list) was 359 vacancies. As far as Kollam district is concerned, it appears that the number of reported vacancies pending, as on 3.7.2017 was only 33 and it remains so, even at the time of publication of the shortlist on 30.12.2017 and the total of such pending vacancies, at the time of publication of the ranked list was 200. Thereafter, some more vacancies may also have been reported. So, it can be seen that, it is only after the publication of the shortlist on 30.12.2017 that, more vacancies were reported in this district. As a matter of fact, some of the other materials may disclose that only one vacancy was subsequently reported on 8.4.2018 and larger number of vacancies were reported only from 29.5.2018, etc. As regards Thrissur District, the number of vacancies reported and pending with the PSC, both as on 3.7.2017 and at the time of the formal publication of the shortlist on O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 115 12.3.2018, was only 18 vacancies. 118 vacancies were totally pending with the PSC, as on the subsequent date of publication of the ranked list on 6.9.2018. Additional 100 vacancies were reported on 16.8.2019. So, it is much after the publication of the shortlist that larger number of vacancies were reported. Some of the materials given in the written statement of the PSC would show that 100 vacancies were reported on 25.7.2018 and further vacancies were reported thereafter at various periods from the end of October, 2018. For Palakkad District, the total number of vacancies reported, as on 3.7.2017, was 36 and altogether 173 reported vacancies were pending as on the publication of the shortlist on 14.2.2018 and the total number of reported pending vacancies became 194 vacancies, at the time of publication of the shortlist on 28.12.2018, etc. In regard to Kannur district, the vacancies reported as on 3.7.2017 was 74 and the total vacancies reported and pending as on the publication of the ranked list on 28.12.2018 was 610 vacancies, etc. The abovesaid facts and figures given by the PSC as well as the details shown in the appointment charts made available by the applicants would all clearly show that the number of vacancies reported and pending with the PSC, as on 3.7.2017 (date on which the impugned decision has been taken), was quite low and the flow of increased number of vacancies happened much later. These aspects O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 116 coupled with the factual aspect that the staff fixation process for the academic year 2017-18 could not have been finalised even by the end of December 2017 or early part of 2018, can only lead to an inference that reporting of larger number of vacancies would have been only in consequence of the subsequent finalization of the staff fixation process for 2017-18, which was highly delayed and much beyond the statutory deadline of July 2017 and so also there could have been delay in the subsequent staff fixation process. So, the matters relating to staff fixation process and actual ascertainment of vacancies in existence and consequential reporting of vacancies, are all in the exclusive province of the appointment authorities/departmental authorities concerned and the PSC cannot be faulted, in any manner, for the delay in that regard. So, since such facts and figures would not have been available with the departmental authorities, even by the end of December, 2017 or early 2018, etc., there is no question of holding that the PSC has failed in its duty in the proper assessment of the vacancies.

56. Going by the materials given to us by the parties, more particularly the appointment charts, it appears that more vacancies have been reported much after the rendering of the impugned decision on 3.7.2017 and the finalization of the shortlist was on 21.1.2018. It is highly probable that it could have occurred mainly because of the delay O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 117 in the finalization of the staff fixation process for 2017-18. So also, we can take the case of Kozhikode district as another illustrative case. Therein also, the vacancies reported as on 3.7.2017 was only 21, which increased altogether to 76, when the PSC had formally published the ranked list on 15.2.2018. It is much thereafter that more vacancies were reported, with the result that the total vacancies reported and pending with the PSC, at the time of finalization of the ranked list, was

326. The applicants have not given any pleadings as to when exactly staff fixation process for 2017-18 was finalised and they have not given any materials to even remotely show that the PSC had, in fact, ascertained from the departmental authorities concerned about the details of the staff fixation process by July, 2017 or immediately thereafter, such facts and figures in that regard could have been available, etc. We are faced with the peculiar scenario, due to the situation when the matters were in a stage of flux due to the drastic change of norms. The departmental authorities may have their own excuses as to how the matters were delayed due to repeated litigative proceedings. So also, it could be that the Governmental authorities may not have taken timely steps for full enforcement of the Central RTE norms, which led to the series of litigation. The main verdict of this Court was rendered on 7.12.2015 and the Government order was O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 118 issued on 19.1.2016, but the DPI circular has been issued only on 20.6.2017, which is after the commencement of the academic year 2017-18. Ext.R-32D supra and Ext.R-32 E supra are Government orders, which would clearly show that, earlier the Government had directed not to conduct an independent and separate staff fixation process for 2016-17, but to follow the one for 2015-16 and much later, on 22.11.2017 it was ordered that the staff fixation process for 2016-17 should be finalised within one month therefrom, for which time was given upto 22.12.2017. So, it is reasonable to infer that the staff fixation process for 2017-18 could have been finalised only later, etc. In the light of these aspects, no court, exercising powers of judicial review can, even safely infer or conclude that the PSC could have easily gathered these data, even by July, 2017 or so. Further, we repeatedly queried to the applicants as to whether they have any specific plea that the PSC should not have taken the decision on 3.7.2017, but should have postponed it, till the finalization of the staff fixation process. We did not get any satisfactory answer to these repeated queries, but a few Advocates, appearing for the applicants, have faintly suggested that, if the PSC had postponed the decision and had taken it only after the staff fixation process was so finalised for 2017-18, etc. then, they would have got a broader picture of the existence of the real likelihood of the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 119 occurrence of vacancies. If that be so, in the given facts and circumstances mentioned above, can the judicial review court hold that the PSC acted highly unreasonably and capriciously in having decided about the size of the shortlist on 3.7.2017 and should have waited for a longer period until the finalization of the staff fixation process. Going by the elementary principles relating to the limitations of the power of judicial review, we are constrained to hold that it will not be right and proper for the judicial review court to hold that the PSC should have taken such an option, in the facts and circumstances of the case. May be such a course would have been more pragmatic and flexible, but that is a matter solely within the domain and province of the selection authority, like the Public Service Commission, which is also a constitutional functionary. It is highly improper and wrong that the judicial review court holds that the PSC has acted capriciously and arbitrarily in not postponing the said decision making process. Further, on the other hand, the facts and figures would also indicate that the previous selection process was over quite some time ago and therefore, it would have been imperative to ensure the timely conduct of the selection process in question. No pleadings are given by the applicants as to when the staff fixation process for 2017-18, etc. had been finalised. It is quite likely that no departmental authorities would O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 120 have been in a position to disclose the details of the staff strength for 2017-2018 at any time prior to the formal finalization of the staff fixation process for 2017-18. The writ court cannot direct that the PSC should have waited for a much longer time. Such an approach in judicial review would be against the basic canons of judicial review. Since we are not in a position to even remotely hold that the PSC should have postponed the decision regarding the size of the shortlist for a period beyond 3.7.2017, the only aspect to be examined is as to whether the PSC's action in deciding on the size of the shortlist is vitiated by illegality or rank unreasonableness, capriciousness, etc. There cannot be serious disputes regarding the first two norms. There is no question of directing the PSC to take into account all vacancies likely to arise during the maximum currency period of 3 years of the ranked list. The minimum assured life span of the list is one year and thereafter, to respect the fundamental rights of the later qualified candidates, next selection process will have to be set in motion. The vacancies reported till 3.1.2017 has been duly taken into account. The other aspects mentioned herein above would clearly show that the decision making process of the PSC, as regards the third norm, cannot be said to be grossly illegal or arbitrary or highly capricious, etc. Hence, the Tribunal could not have taken the view that the PSC has O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 121 failed in its duty to assess the third norm regarding the chance of occurrence of vacancies in future. That apart, the Tribunal has egregiously erred in holding that such chances of occurrence of vacancies should be adjudged, with reference to the maximum 3 year period of the ranked list, inasmuch as it is patently against the dictum laid down by the Tribunal, etc.

57. Further, in Ravidas' case supra [2009 (2) KLT 295(FB)], the Full Bench has clearly held that the prayer of expansion of the ranked list cannot be granted in the absence of impleadment of all selected candidates, as per the ranked list in the writ proceedings. By placing reliance on the verdict of the Apex Court in Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 = 2006 (2) KLT 923], more particularly, paras 43, 46, etc. wherein it has been held that, even if the affected persons are impleaded in representative capacity and notice has been taken out by a newspaper publication, as per Rule 148 of the High Court Rules, the same will not suffice, inasmuch as the procedure as per Rule 148 can apply only when large and indefinite number of persons are involved and that in a case where the ranked list is finalised, definite number of candidates are included therein. Further that, parties seeking such a relief will have to implead the affected candidates, inasmuch as, if the grant of that prayer for O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 122 expansion of the ranked list would lead to substantial re-ordering of the ranking of the candidates. In the light of these aspects, we are of the view that the prayers in these writ proceedings are liable to be rejected on the ground of non impleadment of such affected persons, as already held by the Division Bench in Ravidas' case supra [2009 (2) KLT 295(FB)]. Some of the applicants contended before us that the said objection would not be very relevant inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006(3) KLT 854] has held that relief can be moulded by directing that the preparation of the additional ranked list, advise of candidates therefrom shall be without affecting the advices already made. That point canvassed by the petitioners will be essentially relating to moulding of reliefs in appropriate cases. Whereas the matter settled by the Full Bench is regarding the legal defect of non impleadment. Due to expansion of the ranked list and re-arrangement of the ranked list it is highly probable that some of the candidates, who are excluded from the main list, can have higher rankings than some of the candidates included in the ranked list, if they have secured better marks in the interview. Merely because some of the candidates may have been excluded from the shortlist and main list, as they do not have the marks in the written exam of the last ranking candidate, it is possible O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 123 that they may have better marks in the interview and the combined marks in the written test and interview can give them a better and higher ranking than the already ranked candidates. It is precisely for this reason that the Full Bench has held that the prayer for expansion of the ranked list cannot be considered, in the absence of impleadment of the ranked candidates. Therefore, this is also a material defect, which cannot be ignored.

58. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission has raised a contention that all these OAs have been filed much after the publication of the ranked list and that there was no timely challenge to the shortlist published by the Commission. Further that, the shortlist loses its significance immediately on the publication of the ranked list. So, after publication of the ranked list and after the due process of selection, including interview, the shortlist prepared cannot be expanded. If, as a matter of fact, the OAs have been filed after the ranked list has been published, then prima facie, the said contention has strong force, but since we have already held the main issues against the applicants, there is no necessity for us to enter into any opinion on this plea.

59. The learned counsel for some of the applicants pointed out that factual details would show that there has been an increase in the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 124 number of reported vacancies, as on the formal publication of the short list, compared to the reported vacancies pending as on 3.7.2017 (date on which the PSC has taken the impugned decision regarding the size of the respective short lists) and that if the PSC had at least taken into account the increase in the number of actually reported vacancies pending as on the date of formal publication of the short list, then the size of the shortlist, including the main list thereof would have been much more large. Hence it is urged by some of these applicants that the PSC should have actually taken into account the increased number of vacancies reported and pending with them, as on the subsequent date of publication of the shortlist and hence, the impugned decision is to be treated as unreasonable, etc. This argument has also been strongly opposed by the PSC.

60. The said contention of the applicants is also rejected for reasons more than one. Firstly, keeping in view the well known limitations in the exercise of powers of judicial review, it will not be right and proper for the court to direct when the PSC should have taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist. That would certainly amount to the court entering into the exercise of micro management of the functions of the PSC, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in para 4 of the judgment dated 23.5.2019 in W.P. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 125 (C).No. 2268/2017 [KPSC & Ors. v. Sandeep V. & Ors.= MANU/KE/1932/2019]. Further, it is an elementary norm in selection processes of this nature, which are conducted by a selection agency with written examination and interview as the main components of the selection, the marks of the written examination of the candidates will have to be kept highly secretive and confidential and the same is not disclosed till the interview process is over and the ranked list is published. Otherwise, if the secrecy regarding the marks of the written examination is breached, before the finalization of the entire interview process, then the said action could be challenged, as affecting the very integrity of the selection process, inasmuch as the marks in the written examination should not be made known to anyone, including the interview board members, till the completion of the interview process.

A perusal of the norms, as per para 2 of the PSC circular dated 1.12.2003, would disclose that the marks and marks range of the candidates will have to be taken into account in finally fine tuning the exact size of the shortlist. Since the selection authority, like the PSC, is bound to have a very strict control to maintain the maximum secrecy and confidentiality of the written examination marks, it will not be right and proper to ascertain from them as to the steps in that regard. However, it can be inferred that, in having to comply with the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 126 requirement as per para 2 of the circular dated 1.12.2003, for knowing the marks and marks range to fix the size of the main list of the shortlist, at least some of the officials will have to have that information, but in strict confidentiality and secrecy. Once that process is observed, at the time when the PSC has taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist, if again the decision regarding the size of the shortlist is to be revised based on the increased number of reported vacancies, then again the same process for knowing the marks range of the candidates may have to be repeated and the requirement to maintain the sacrosanct nature of the secrecy and confidentiality of the marks of the written examination, will be tinkered with and so the PSC may find it highly necessary and imperative that such process cannot be repeated, as it may have many adverse possibilities. We are making these observations on an inferential basis, as it may not be right and proper for this Court to direct the PSC to furnish details in that regard, as any such information given in the public domain will affect the secrecy and confidentiality as above. So, this could be one highly and relevant aspect, which constrains the PSC not to revise the size of the shortlist on a future occasion. Once the size of the shortlist is decided, then the said decision is not to be revised, even at the time of the formal publication O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 127 of the shortlist, due to the increased number of vacancies, etc. More importantly, after the conduct of the written examination, the PSC will have to initially take a decision fixing the size of the shortlist, regarding the number of candidates to be called for interview and then can only they take steps to finalise the shortlist and effect its formal publication. So, the time at which the initial decision regarding the size of the shortlist and the time of the subsequent publication of the shortlist, etc. can only be at two different and distinct points of time. That being so, it will be against the principles of judicial review for the court to direct the PSC, as suggested by some of the applicants. Moreover, we have already held that this Court cannot direct the PSC as to at which point of time it has to take a decision regarding the size of the shortlist or that it should have postponed the taking up of the decision pending formal finalization of the staff fixation process, etc. So, if the decision as to the time at which the decision, regarding the size of the shortlist is to be rendered is a matter within the exclusive province of the PSC, then there is no question of the court directing that further revision should be made at the time of formal publication of the shortlist, merely on account of the increased number of vacancies.

61. Yet another similar contention in this regard was also raised by some of the applicants that the PSC should have revised the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 128 decision regarding the size of the shortlist, prior to the finalization of the ranked list, inasmuch as larger number of vacancies was reported by the appointing authorities to the PSC between the finalization of the short list and the publication of the ranked list. This contention is only to be rejected. The finalization of the shortlist and the finalization of the ranked lists are two different and separate processes, though it is interrelated to the same selection process. The decisions regarding the shortlist and publication of the shortlist have to be effected by the PSC first and that is mainly for deciding the number of test taken candidates, who are to be called for the interview, as it is not feasible or desirable to interview unwieldy large number of candidates. So when these processes are distinct and separate, the decision and finalization of the first process, regarding the size of the shortlist and publication of the shortlist, will have to be effected first and it is only thereafter, that the ranked list can be finalised after the conduct of the interview. Therefore, to contend that the subsequently reported vacancies, at the time of finalization of the ranked list, should have been taken into account, for deciding the size of the shortlist is absolutely untenable. This may amount to a situation, whereby the court will have to direct the PSC that, even after the completion of the interview process, based on the shortlist, they will have to again revise the shortlist, so as to O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 129 interview further large number of candidates merely on account of the increased number of subsequently reported vacancies. Once the size of the shortlist is decided and the shortlist is duly published as per the procedure, then there is no question of the court directing the PSC to revise the shortlist of candidates to be interviewed from time to time, merely on account of the increase in the number of reported vacancies. Such interference by the court exercising judicial review, is impermissible and would amount to the court getting into the area of micro management of the functions of the selection authority. Of course, the only exception is where there is gross illegality or manifest unreasonableness and impropriety that the courts, after taking into account all relevant aspects of the matter, may interfere in the matter (see the decisions of this Court in Sanjesh Babu's case case [2014 (1) KHC 279 (DB) para 11 etc]. So these contentions of the applicants will also stand rejected.

62. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Tribunal has seriously erred in rendering the impugned verdict in these cases. The abovesaid crucial and relevant aspects of the matter have not been duly considered by the Tribunal in the rendering of the impugned common verdict. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned common final order dated 24.8.2020, rendered by the Kerala Administrative O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 130 Tribunal, in the above OAs will stand set aside. The prayers in the original applications for expansion of the shortlist and the ranked list will stand rejected.

63. Some points for consideration of the Government and the Public Service Commission:

It is a matter of common knowledge that very many candidates aspiring for governmental employment, through the PSC selection process, raise disputes regarding the delay in reporting vacancies and also expansion of shortlist, ranked list, etc. Presumably, on account of lack of expanded scope for private sector employment in the State, many of the aspirants are keen on public employment, including appointments to State Civil services and in public sector organizations and other public sector entities, through the PSC.

64. It is also a matter of common knowledge that many a time unemployed youth aspiring for such selection also join for public protests against some of these issues. We are sure that the respondent State Government authorities are fully aware of these concerns. However, even now, the clamour and cry of such persons is that the selection process of public sector entities should be brought within the ambit of the PSC process. Suffice to say that the confidence of the people in the fairness of the selection process conducted through the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 131 PSC is sustained. Suffice to say that, due to the efficacious functioning, the Service Commission has been able to instill confidence in the fairness of the selection process. Compared to the various other State public Service Commissions and even the Union Public Service Commission, volumes of the selection process undertaken by the Kerala Public Service Commission are on a very large scale. Some of the acute and consistent disputes is regarding long delays on the part of the appointing authorities and departmental authorities to report vacancies to the PSC before the expiry of the ranked list. So also, disputes are raised and litigative proceedings are initiated for expansion of the shortlist and ranked list. As in these cases, one of the main grounds often urged by the litigants is regarding non reckoning of vacancies likely to arise in future, etc. It is trite that matters relating to sanction and creation of posts, staff fixation, reporting of vacancies, etc. are all within the exclusive domain and province of the governmental and departmental authorities concerned. The Service Commission does not have any competence to direct or instruct the departmental authorities to report vacancies. The trend in initiating litigative proceedings just before the preparation of the ranked list with the plea for additional vacancies, etc. by the appointing authority to the PSC, has been taken note of by this Court in the decision rendered by O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 132 this Court in O.P(KAT) No.2/2022 [Arishtha v. State of Kerala 2022 (1) KLT Online 1204] and this Court has also made certain observations and guidelines therein. In view of these aspects, it is only for public good if the State Government considers various steps and options to fine tune and create a robust methodology for the timely reporting of vacancies and also to enable the PSC to have an insight about the vacancies which are in existence, but not reported and also vacancies likely to arise in the future for the preparation of shortlist and consequential main list. It appears that for selections done at the behest of the Union Public Service Commission and other Central agencies, like the Staff Selection Commission, the recruitment is confined to notified vacancies and subject to a waiting list to ensure appointments of candidates as against NJD vacancies arising out of the appointments made against the notified vacancies. We have come across cases where selections have been done by the Staff Selection Commission for the Central Police Forces, etc., involving very large number of vacancies at all India level and it appears that those recruitments are confined to notified vacancies and there is a very inbuilt and effective system, whereby the appointing authorities report vacancies in advance to those selection agencies, to enable them to issue selection notifications clearly showing the notified vacancies. O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 133 Such a methodology would abate a lot of litigative proceedings as above and would also be in consonance with the constitutional principles envisaged by the Apex Court in decisions as in A.Reshma's case supra (2021) 3 SCC 755. We had requested the Assistant Solicitor General of India to collect certain details from agencies like the Staff Selection Commission, etc. as to how they have built up an effective methodology for ensuring that the appointing authorities make timely reporting of vacancies to the selection agencies so that selection notification is issued, showing the definite number of notified vacancies.

65. Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has collected certain details and data from the Staff Selection Commission, which comes within the purview of the Department of Personnel & Training, Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India. It is apprised that the Union Government has established Staff Selection Commission (SSC) which comes within the purview of the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), by a resolution and the functions of the SSC have been enlarged from time to time, etc.

66. It appears that the SSC has been authorised to make recruitment to various posts like Group B (gazetted) posts of Assistant O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 134 Accounts Officer and Assistant Audit Officer for the Indian Audit & Accounts Department coming under the Comptroller & Auditor General, Group B (non-gazetted) posts and Group C (non-Technical) posts under the Government of India and their attached and Subordinate Officers, etc. The SSC conducts examination for the recruitment of selection posts, which are isolated posts (not coming under the All India open competitive examinations) for Group B (non- gazetted) and Group C (non-Technical) posts under the Union Government and their Attached and subordinate Offices. Function is also entrusted upon them to conduct Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations of the Central Secretariat, Clerical service, etc. As regards the specific query regarding the guidelines and instructions to ensure the prompt and effective reporting of vacancies by the appointing authority through the UPSC, following information has been conveyed:

67. That online vacancy collection from various ministries/ departments of the Union Government is one of the major activities of the SSC for carrying out recruitments of Group B and Group C posts. Vacancy collection procedure is a complete online system, which has been implemented w.e.f. 2014 and in addition, with the online collection of vacancies in a centralised manner, Regional Offices of the O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 135 SSC are not required to collect any vacancy. In the case of multi tasking servants (MTS) and selection posts examination, vacancies are collected/ compiled offline by the regional offices of the Commission, which are further reported to the head quarters through the vacancy collection portal. Further that, all user Departments are required to nominate nodal officers for reporting the vacancies online. The system provides for the creation of user ID and password before the scheduled date of notification of any examination. The Policy & Planning section will request the User Departments for intimating vacancies for the examinations. Access to the vacancy collection portal is provided for a specific period to the user Departments for reporting vacancies. After submission of vacancies, the user Department is required to submit the printout obtained by the system, along with the required annexures to the Commission. Further, vacancies reported by the user Department will be incorporated in the notice of the examination, if received from each participating user Department, before the publication of the notice of examination. Finalization of vacancies shall be done after examining vacancies, reported in the prescribed format, copy of the Recruitment Rules, NOC from the Surplus Cell of DoP&T of the Government of India, etc. Confirmation of the vacancies will be taken from the user Departments before document verification. The O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 136 Commission does not have any role in deciding the number of vacancies of any user Department. Implementation of reservation policy, maintaining reservation roster and earmarking of vacancies for different categories are under the domain of the User Departments concerned. In so far as the guidelines issued by the Government of India (DoP&T), which mandate Ministries/ Departments to report vacancies to recruitment agencies, viz. SSC and UPSC, in a time bound manner are concerned, such instructions have been issued by the Government of India vide office memorandum OM No.39020/ 18/2016-Estt (B/3127101 dated 19.12.2016 and OM No.43014/03/ 2019-Estt (B) dated 21.1.20220.

68. Further, it is also apprised that the SSC publishes select list of successful candidates only to the extent of vacancies reported by the user Departments, and as the mandated examinations are conducted by the Commission for multiple posts/ departments, preparation and operation of waiting list is not feasible. However, if any examination is conducted for a single post and for a single Department, like the recruitment of Constable (Executive) for Delhi Police, etc., waiting list prepared as per the request of the user Department. Further that, for recruitment to selection posts, the SCC publishes the select list (SL) and also maintains a Waiting List (WL) of candidates and the validity O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 137 period of the waiting list is one and a half years at present, which is operated if the select list candidates communicate, in writing, their non willingness to join the post, etc.

69. In view of serious complaints regarding non reporting of vacancies by the appointing authorities, raised by candidates aspiring selection process through the PSC and related issue, to advance public good and in the fitness of things the Government should take serious initiatives to examine such issues for its serious and anxious consideration and then consider whether remedial measures are feasible. Since these matters are intimately connected with the functioning of the PSC, it will be only better in public interest that the Government takes concerted initiatives and efforts, in this regard, after ascertaining from the PSC about the various matters, which require fine tuning in this regard. It has been recently reported that the Kerala Public Service Commission has been holding conferences with various State Public Service Commissions and the Union Public Service Commission for adoption of the best selection practices. Hence, the Government should seriously consider to act in concert with the PSC and to ascertain from the Union Govt. Departments, various selection agencies, like Union Public Service Commission, Staff Selection Commission of the Government of India and various other State Public O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 138 Service Commissions, wherein they have a strong inbuilt system of having timely reporting of vacancies and where the selection process is confined to the notified vacancies, etc. The best norms and practices, as may be available from the Union Govt's Departments, UPSC, SCC and other State Public Service Commissions, if any, applicable, may be ascertained by the State Government, jointly with the Kerala Public Service Commission and thereafter, the State Government will seriously consider whether those best practices, as now being consistently practiced by the Union Govt.'s Departments, SCC, UPSC, etc. could be appropriately adopted by the State Govt. and even to think of serious adoption of an online portal for reporting of vacancies by the appointing authorities/departmental authorities through the Kerala Public Service Commission and the various district and regional offices of the PSC, as the case may be so that acute complaints in that regard are abated. This would also enable the Public Service Commission to prepare shortlists and ranked lists in an efficacious manner so that the grievances of the unemployed youth, aspiring for selection are redressed to the extent possible. Further, this would also go a long way for the correct practice of constitutional principles enunciated by the Apex Court for equal opportunity of pubic employment in the decision cited supra.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 139

70. Since the matters relating to verification of available vacancies, sanction of fresh vacancies, sanction of fresh posts and reporting of vacancies are all within the exclusive domain of the State Government/departmental authorities concerned, the State authorities have a duty and responsibility to ensure that a robust and effective system is put in place for such process, including for reporting of vacancies by the appointing authority to the PSC, in an effective and time bound manner and well before the expiry of the ranked list, in cases where the ranked lists are current and also to have an effective arrangement to enable the appointing authorities/departmental authorities to apprise the PSC about, not only the availability of existing vacancies, but also the vacancies that are reasonably expected to arise, at least within the minimum assured life span of one year of the ranked list and the PSC is well equipped to take a decision regarding the size of the shortlist of candidates to be called for interview, inclusive of the main list and supplementary list, etc. Since, ordinarily, time gap between the date on which the PSC has taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist and the date of the finalization of the ranked list would be at least 6 to 10 months and since the minimum assured life span of the ranked list, as per the operative portion of Rule 13 of the PSC Rules of Procedure, is one year, O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 140 it will be only in the fitness of things that the appointing authorities/ departmental authorities apprise the PSC about not only the actually existing vacancies to be reported but also the vacancies that are reasonably likely to arise within a period of one and a half years or so from the date/month on which the PSC proposes to take decision regarding the size of the shortlist.

71. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are issued:

(i) In order to ensure the above aspects, the competent authority of the State Government should seriously consider these aspects and take steps to constitute a committee of two-three officers of the State Government, two members of the PSC and a few officials of the PSC to ascertain from the various departments like the Dept. of Personnel & Training of the Union Govt. and other Union Govt. Departments responsible for reporting of vacancies to SSC/ UPSC as well as other selection authorities, like the Union Public Service Commission, Staff Selection Commission of the Government of India and various other State Public Service Commissions, who already have an inbuilt and strong system for timely reporting of vacancies, especially in cases where the norm is that recruitment shall be confined to the notified vacancies in the selection notification, etc. so that a clear picture could be obtained by the State authorities and the PSC, as to how appropriate steps could be introduced in the State of Kerala for providing such a robust and effective system for ascertaining and for the timely reporting of vacancies and also to give relevant information to the PSC to take effective decisions regarding the size of the shortlist. Such effective and proactive steps taken by the State O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 141 authorities would certainly have immediate and serious improvement in the present system so that frequently arising objections and complaints of candidates aspiring for selection through the PSC, as above, could be abated or avoided to a substantial or significant level. The State Government will constitute such a committee within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(ii) The afore-committee, after careful examination of the relevant aspects of the matter, may make appropriate recommendations in the matter and place it before the State Government and the competent authority of the State Government in their discretion may consider whether any appropriate decisions are to be taken thereon on the basis of the recommendations of the above committee and if such decision is so taken, then the State Government may also consider whether any Government orders or circulars in that regard are to be issued for implementing such decisions. So also, the PSC may also consequentially consider whether any revised circulars/norms are to be issued in the matter of deciding on the size of the short list/ probable list, etc.

(iii) In this process, the Government may also consider as to how the PSC authorities could be given necessary facilities for interacting with the appointing authorities/departmental authorities, to have a precise and clear picture as to whether future probable vacancies are likely to arise at the time of finalisation of the shortlist.

We hope and trust that the higher authorities of the State Government will certainly be alive to the concerns and problems ventilated by the unemployed youth, aspiring for public employment, and will take necessary remedial measures, which would only advance O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 142 public interest and would also go a long way in subserving the enforcement of the constitutional norms as above.

The Registry will forward copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and to the Secretary to the Kerala Public Service Commission, for necessary action.

With these observations and directions, the above OP(KAT)s will stand finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE skk sdk+ APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 351/2020 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.1008 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER GAZETTE DATED 10.09.2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A3 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST DATED 13.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.A4 39529/18 DATED 17.12.2018 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A5 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.UP.C1/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RANKED LIST NO.985/2018/SII DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.1008 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-    NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 319/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES:
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.1935 OF 2018
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE
                   KPSC   (CATEGORY     NO.387/2014)     (GAZETTE
                   DATED 10.09.2014).
ANNEXURE A2        THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE 1ST
                   APPLICANT IN THE WEBSITE.
ANNEXURE A3        THE   TRUE    COPY   OF    THE    NOTIFICATION

(SL.NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 (CAT NO.387/2014) ISSUED BY THE PSC.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4/30077/18/K.DIS DATED 25.09.2018 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.LS.C1/86/2018/LSGD DATED 24.04.2018 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

ANNEXURE A6        TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN
                   MATHRUBHOOMI      THOZHIL     VARTHA     DATED
                   13.07.2018.
ANNEXURE A6(A)     TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN

MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 17.07.2018. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ODER IN OA (EKM) NO.1087/2018 DATED 13.06.2018.

ANNEXURE A8        TRUE    COPY     OF    THE   ORDER     NO.MCOP
                   NO.246/2018    DATED    27.07.2018    OF   THE
                   KERALA STATE MINORITY COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
                   COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3         TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA(EKM) NO.1935 OF
                   2018 DATED 24.08.2020.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 322/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE THE O.A (EKM) NO. 39 OF
                   2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER
                   GAZETTE DATE 10.09.2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.
                   387/2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA
                   STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A2        TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.

01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A 3 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST DATED 13.12.2018.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO A4/39529/18 DATED 17.12.2018 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER.

ANNEXURE A5 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

UP.CI/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RANKED LIST NO.985/2018/SSII DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A7        TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED
                   25.09.2018 BY THE STATE PUBLIC
                   INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY
                   DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM TO A
                   CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST.
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A (EKM)NO.39 OF
                   2020 DATED 24/08/2020.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 328/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.1732 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER GAZETTE

DATED 10.09.2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.

01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC.

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST DATED 13.12.2018.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.A4/39529/18 DATED 17.12.2018 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.UP/C1/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RANKED LIST NO.985/2018/SSII DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC.

EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA (EKM)
                   NO.1732 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 324/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.631 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE   COPY    OF   NOTIFICATION   (CATEGORY
                   NO.387/2014) PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE
                   DATED 10.09.2014 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2        TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RANKED

LIST NO.985/2018/SSII (CAT. NO.387/2014) PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 02.02.2019 SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT.

ANNEXURE A4        TRUE      COPY      OF      REPLY     LETTER
                   NO.A4/4310/19/L.DIS      DATED    12.02.2019
                   RECEIVED UNDER RIT ACT.
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
                   BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2
                   DATED 29.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P3         TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.631 OF
                   2019 DATED 24.08.2020.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 327/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM)NO.1007 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER
                   GAZETTE DATED 10.09.2014 FOR CATEGORY
                   NO.387/2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
                   KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A2        A   TRUE    COPY  OF    THE    SHORTLIST    SL.

NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A3        THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION
                   FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST
                   DATED     13.12.2018     ISSUED       TO    THE
                   INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
                   EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE A4        A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.A4/39529/18
                   DATED     17.12.2018     FROM     THE     STATE
                   INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
                   EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE A5        THE   PHOTOSTAT    COPY     OF    THE    LETTER

NO.UP.C1/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.1007 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 395/2020 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.963/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER GAZETTE DATED 10/09/2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.

NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23/01/2018 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 THE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST DATED 13/12/2018 TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.A4/39529/18 DATED 17/12/2018 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A5 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADVICE/C1/86/2018 DATED 24/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAPGES OF THE RANK LIST NO.985/18 SSII DATED 28/12/2018.

EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA(EKM) NO.963/2019 DATED 24/08/2020.

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:- NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 385/2020 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1026 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 10.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC, CATEGORY NO.387/20.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST NO.977/2018/SSII FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

ANNEXURE A3               TRUE   COPY    OF    REPRESENTATION   DATED
                          6.5.2019   SUBMITTED    BY  THE   APPLICANT
                          BEFORE   THE    CHAIRMAN,   KERALA   PUBLIC
                          SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P2                REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF
                          RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4.
EXHIBIT P3                TRUE COY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1026 OF
                          2019 DATED 24.8.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 333/2020


PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1903 OF 2018
                       WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1            TRUE COPY OF PSC NOTIFICATION DATED

10.09.2014 AGAINST CATEGORY NO.387/2014 TO THE POST OF LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (LSPA) MALAYALAM MEDIUM.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHING THE MAIN AND SUPPLEMENTARY LIST ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CAT.NO.387/2014.

ANNEXURE A3 AN INDEX/LIST OF EXISTING VACANCIES AND THE ANTICIPATED VACANCIES PREPARED BY THE APPLICANTS ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT FROM VARIOUS OFFICES OF AEO'S AND GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONE SUCH LETTER DATED 05.03.2018 ADDRESSED BY A CANDIDATE TO THE AEO IN MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A5 A COPY OF AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT TO THE HEADMASTERS OF VARIOUS SCHOOLS BY A CANDIDATE IN WHICH QUESTION 3 AND 12.

ANNEXURE A6 A COPY OF AN APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT BEFORE VARIOUS HEADMASTERS UNDER MELATTOR AEO IN WHICH QUESTIONS 3 AND 12 ARE RELEVANT.

ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED LIST OF INTER DISTRICT TRANSFER OF LPSA/PD TEACHERS 2017-2018 FROM MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF CATEGORY WISE VACANCY LIST IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT IN SUB DISTRICT WISE AS REPORTED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AS ON 09.05.2018 AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE. ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF RETIREMENT DETAILS IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2018 DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF RETIREMENT STATUS OF GOVERNMENT LPSA'S BASED ON GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GENERAL EDUCATION DETAILS WEBSITE O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2018-19 ACADEMIC YEAR DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PSC.

ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.01/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF M.A.FOR ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - ANNEXURE A13.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A/30077/718 DATED 25.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF M.A. FOR ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - ANNEXURE A14.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY VIJITHA UNDER RTI ACT AND THE REPLY DATED 27.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1903 OF 2018 DATED 24.08.2020.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-              NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 335/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.986 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER
                   GAZETTE DATE 10/09/2014 FOR CATEGORY
                   NO.387/2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
                   KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A2        A    TRUE    COPY    OF    THE    SHORTLIST
                   SL.NO.01/2018/DOM      DATED     23/01/2018
                   PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA
                   PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE A3        THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION
                   FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST
                   DATED     13/12/2018    ISSUED     TO    THE
                   INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
                   EDUCATION MALAPPURAM IS PRODUCED.
ANNEXURE A4        A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.A4/39529/18
                   DATED    17/12/2018     FROM   THE     STATE
                   INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
                   EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE A5        THE   PHOTOSTAT    COPY   OF   THE    LETTER

NO.UP.C1/86/2018 DATED 24/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 & 2. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.986 OF 2019 DATED 24/08/2020.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 337/2020 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA(EKM) NO.985 OF 2019 WITH ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER GAZETTE DATE 10.09.2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANNEXURE-A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST S.L.NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE-A3 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY A CANDIDATE IN THE RANK LIST DATED 13.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE-A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.A4/39529/18 DATED 17.12.2018 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE-A5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.U.P.C1/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS 1 & 2 DATED 29.06.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A(EKM) NO.985 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 405/2020 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A(EKM)NO.1563 OF 2018 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED

10.09.2014 FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF L.P. SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) AS CATEGORY NO.387/2014.

ANNEXURE A2               THE   TRUE   COPY    OF   THE    SHORTLIST
                          NO.03/2018/DOD   DATED   15.02.2018    FOR
                          CATEGORY   NO.387/2014    [(L.P.    SCHOOL
                          ASSISTANT [(MALAYALAM MEDIUM)]
ANNEXURE A3               THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION NO.T2823
                          DATED 18.06.2018 ASKED IN THE KERALA
                          LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLE AND REPLY THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P2                TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ON
                          BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3.
EXHIBIT P3                TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.1563 OF
                          2018 DATED 24.08.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 356/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-

ANNEXURE A1               TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED
                          10.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC-
                          CATEGORY NO.387/14.
ANNEXURE A2               TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST NO.634/2018/SSV
                          FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 PUBLISHED BY THE

KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND OTHERS BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING THE REGISTRATION OF ANNEXURE A3 REPRESENTATION.

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.2363 OF 2018 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 3 & 4.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.2363 OF 2018 DATED 24.08.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 343/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED
                   10.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,KPSC
ANNEXURE-A2        TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST NO.634/2018/SSV
                   FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 PUBLISHED BY THE
                   DISTRICT OFFICER, KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE,
                   THRISSUR
ANNEXURE-A3        TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
                   056.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
                   AND OTHERS BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA
                   PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.129 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
                   BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.S 32 AND 4
                   DATED 02.12.2019
EXHIBIT P3         TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.129 OF
                   2019 DATED 24.08.2020

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 345/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE O.A(EKM)NO.848 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
                   10.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC.
ANNEXURE A2        TRUE    COPY   OF     THE   RANKED    LIST

NO.977/2018/SSII FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE,KOZHIKODE.

ANNEXUREA3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.848 OF 2019 DATED 24/08/2020 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 406/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (CATEGORY NO.

387/2014) 10.9.2014.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2018 (CAT.

NO. 387/2014).

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.6.2016 ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. (EKM) NO 1367 OF 2018 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OG MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TO CORRECTTHE REPLY STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1367 OF 2018 DATED 24.08.2020.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 349/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.781 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A1 COPY OF THE SHORT LIST NO3/2018/DOD DATED 15.02.18 FOR THE POST OF LPSA (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CAT NO.387/2014 ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.977/2018/SSIII DATED 28.12.18 FOR THE POST OF LPSA (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CAT NO.387/2014 ANNEXURE-A3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.17 IN WPC NO.24909/2016 EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2268/2017 DATED 23.05.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.781 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 378/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1009.2014 AGAINST CATEGORY NO. 387/2014 TO THE POST OF LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT LPSA) MALAYALAM MEDIUM.

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.01.2018.

ANNEXURE A2A THE TRUE LETTER NO. MRIII(2) 32/2018/RTA DATED 1/02/20 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE INDEX/LIST OF EXISTING VACANCIES AND THE ANTICIPATED VACANCIES AS RECEIVED FROM THE INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT FROM VARIOUS OFFICE OF AEOS, DEOS AND GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT LETTER DATED 05/03/2018 ADDRERSSED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 17 AEO SIN MALAYALAM.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO E/923/18 DATED NIL ISUED BY THE AEO, WANDOOR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO B/1495/2018 DATED 27/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO,EDAPPALTO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO B/737/2018 DATED 05/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, THANOOR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A/1309/2018 DATED 21/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, AREEKODE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A/850/2018 DATED 05/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, PARAPPANANGADI.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A/681/2018 DATED 13.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, MANJERI TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A./1049/2018 DATED 03/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, NILAMBUR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A/1714/2018 DATED 20/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, TIRUR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO D/1613/2018 DATED 06/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, MANKADA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A/890/2018 DATED 20/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, VENGERA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO B/981/2018 DATED 03/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, PONNAI TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO .A/1400/2018 DATED 16/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, KUTIPURAM TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO A/774/2018 DATED 05/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, KEESHERI TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO .D/664/2018 DATED 27/3/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, PEERINTHALMANNA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO .A.681/2018 DATED 15/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, MANJERI TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO .A/1748/2017 DATED 14.03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, MALAPPURAM TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO .A562/2018 DATED 0703/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, MELATTOOR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO .A.1927/2018 DATED 03/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, KONDOTTY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE SUPPLICATION DATED 22/03/2018 SUBMITTED TO THE HEADMASTERS OF USURIOUS SCHOOLS.

ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, VADAKKEMANNA DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, PERINGOTTIPURAM DATED 31/02/2018..

ANNEXURE A26 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMUPS, CHEMMANKADAVU DATED O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases NIL.

ANNEXURE A27 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GUPS, MUTHIRIPARAMB DATED 23/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A28 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, ATHANIKKAL DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A29 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, POOKKOTTUR (OLD) DATED 22/02/2018.

ANNEXURE A30 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, POOKKOTTUR (OLD) DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A31 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, POOKKOTTUR DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A32 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMUPS, IRUMBUZHI DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A33 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, IRUMBUZHI DATED 09/04/2018.

ANNEXURE A34 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GUPS, PONMALA DATED 06/04/2018.

ANNEXURE A35 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, CHOONUR DATED 0604/2018.

ANNEXURE A 36 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, CHAPPANANGADI DATED 06/4/2018.

ANNEXURE A 37 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, PRANKIMOOCHIKAL DATED 07/04/2018.

ANNEXURE A 38 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, MELMURI CENTRAL DATED O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 23/3/2018.

ANNEXURE A39 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, KOLMANNA DATED 22/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A40 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, KOLMANNA DATED 22/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A41 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GUPS, KOTTACKAL DATED 21/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A42 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, KOTAKKAL DATED 21/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A43 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, MELMURI NORTH DATED 22/03/2018..

ANNEXURE A44 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, MELMURI NORTH DATED 22/03/2018..

ANNEXURE A45 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMUPS, KOTTACKAL DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A46 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GVHSS, PUYLLANOOR DATED 24/03/2018 ANNEXURE A47 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, MELMURI NORTH DATED 22/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A48 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, PARANKIMOOCHIKAL DATED 07/04/2018..

ANNEXURE A49 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GLPS, MELMURI DATED 23/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A50 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMLPS, MALAPPURAM DATED 21.3.2018.

ANNEXURE A51 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER GMUPS, MELMURI DATED 27/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A52 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, PATHIRICODE DATED 04.04.2018.

ANNEXURE A53 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER,GLPS, PATHIRICODE DATED 04.04.2018.

ANNEXURE A54 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS MELKULANGARA DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A55 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER,GLPS, KARA DATED 28.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A56 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER,GLPS,CHEMMANIODE DATED 31.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A57 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, CHERIPARAMBA DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A58 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS,KOMBANKALLU DATED 06.04.2018.

ANNEXURE A59 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI (ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, PALLIKUTH DATED 26.03.2018) ANNEXURE A60 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, PALLIKUTH DATED 6.4.18. ANNEXURE A61 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, THELAKKAD DATED 27.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A62 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER GLPS, THADATHIL PARAMBA,KONDOTTY DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A63 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMUPS,ARIMBRA DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A64 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, ARIMBRA, MELMURI DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A65 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMUPS, OZZHUKA DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A66 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, MORAYOOR DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A67 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.

NIL,ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER,GMLPS, ALPARAMBA DATED 07.04.2018.

ANNEXURE A68 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMLPS,MAPRAM DATED 31.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A69 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, MUNDUMUZHI DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A70 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NI.

ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, ELAMARAM DATED 31.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A71 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMLPS KUMMINIPARAMBA DATED 27.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A72 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMLPS, MELANGODE DATED 03.04.2018.

ANNEXURE A73 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, PUTHUKODE DATED O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases 06.04.2018.

ANNEXURE A74 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMISTRESS, GMLPS,KANJUIRAPARAMB DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A75 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMLPS,KARIPOOR DATED 27.03.2018 ANNEXURE A76 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMUPS, CHIRAYIL DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A77 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, THURACKAL DATED 23.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A78 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER,GMLPS,CHUNGHAM, KONDOTTY DATED NIL ANNEXURE A79 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO NIL.

ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMLPS,KONDOTTY DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A80 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GWUPS, NEDIYIRUPPU DATED 24.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A81 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GLPS, NEDIYIRIPPU DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A82 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL, ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE HEADMASTER, GMLPS, NEDIYIRUPPU DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A83 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHSS, VADASSERY DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A84 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHS, ATHAVANAD PARITHI DATED NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases ANNEXURE A85 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHSS, NIRAMARUTHUR DATED 31.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A86 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHSS,KAATILANGADI DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A87 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GVHSS, PULLANNOOR DATED 24.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A88 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMISTRESS , GHS, PERAKAMANNA DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A89 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHSS, MARANCHERI DATED 27.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A90 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYL LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMISTRESS, GHS MARUTHA DATED 26.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A91 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMISTRESS, GHSS, KOKKUR DATED 28.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A92 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GMHS, KARIPOL DATED 24.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A93 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMISTRESS, GHS, KADUGAPPURAM DATED NIL.

ANNEXURE A94 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHSS, CHULLIKODE DATED 21.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A95 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHSS, CHERIYAM MANKADA DATED 20.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A96 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHS, CHALIYAPPURAM DATED NIL. ANNEXURE A97 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHS, KAPPU DATED 23.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A98 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHS, NEELANCHERRY DATED 21/03/2018.

ANNEXURE A 99 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.NIL ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT BY THE HEADMASTER, GHS FOR GIRLS, WANDOOR DATED 27/3/2018.

ANNEXURE A99A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED LIST OF INTER DISTRICT TRANSFER OF LPSA/PD TEACHERS 2017-2018 FROM MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A100 TRUE COPY OF THE CATEGORY WISE VACANCY LIST IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT IN SUB DISTRICT, WISE DATED NIL, AS REPORTED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AS ON 09/05.2018.

ANNEXURE A101 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF RETIREMENT DETAILS IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2018.

ANNEXURE A102 TRUE COPY OF THE RETIREMENT STATUS OF GOVERNMENT LPSAS BASED ON GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GENERAL EDUCATION DETAILS WEBSITE OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19.

ANNEXURE A103 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE 38 CHAIRMAN OF PSC.

ANNEXURE A104 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1/86/2018 DATED 24/04/2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. EKM NO. 1087 F 2018 WITH IT ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A. EKM NO. 1087 OF 2018 DATED 24/08/2020.

O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 362/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.34 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1        A   TRUE   COPY    OF   NOTIFICATION    OF
                   CAT.NO.387/2014 ALONG WITH RANKED LIST
                   NO.978/2018/SSV ISSUED BY THE KERALA
                   PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE POST OF
                   LP SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) IN
                   PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2        TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED NIL
                   SUBMITTED BY THE LPSA RANK HOLDERS
                   (SUPPLEMENTARY), PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE A3        TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
                   20.12.2019 OA (EKM) NO.2212 OF 2019 BY
                   THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.34 OF
                   2020 DATED 24/08/2020.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 423/2020


PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

EXHIBIT P1                TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. (EKM) NO. 962 OF
                          2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1               TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION AS PER GAZETTE
                          DATED 10/09/2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.
                          387/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2               TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST
                          SL.NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23/01/2018
                          PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3               TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION DATED
                          13/2/2018.
ANNEXURE A4               TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/12/2018.
ANNEXURE A5               TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. UP.C1/86/2018
                          DATED 24/04/2018.
EXHIBIT P2                TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
                          BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS 1 AND 2
                          DATED 29/06/2019.
EXHIBIT P3                TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A. EKM NO. 962 OF
                          2019 DATED 25/08/2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:              NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 387/2020


PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1                TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.2212 OF
                          2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1               TRUE       COPY      OF       NOTIFICATION

NO.CAT.NO.387/2014 ALONG WITH RANKED LIST NO.978/2018/SSV ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE POST OF LP SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.NIL.

SUBMITTED BY THE LPSA RANK HOLDERS (SUPPLEMENTARY), PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DT.17.10.2019 IN OA (EKM) NO.878 OF 2019 BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.2212 OF 2019 DATED 24.8.2020 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 391/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A2               A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST
                          NO.971/2018/SS III FOR CATEGORY
                          NO.387/2014.
ANNEXURE A3               TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OFFICER,
                          KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM UNDER RTI
                          ACT.
ANNEXURE A4               A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                          15/06/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
                          BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC
                          SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P1                TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.582 OF 2020 WITH
                          ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2                TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.582 OF 2020
                          DATED 27/08/2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 390/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-

ANNEXURE A1               TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
                          10.09.2014.
ANNEXURE A2               A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIT
                          NO.971/2018/SS III FOR CATEGORY
                          NO.387/2014.
ANNEXURE A3               THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED
                          FROM THE INFORMATION OFFICER, KPSC
                          DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM UNDER RTI ACT
                          ALONG WITH QUESTION.
ANNEXURE A4               A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                          16.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
                          BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC
                          SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P1                TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.2024 OF 2019 WITH
                          ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2                TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.2024 OF 2019
                          DATED 27.08.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 393/2020


PETITIONER EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO. 2020 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
                   RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA
                   PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR CATEGORY NO

387/2014- L.P SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) IN EDUCATION DEPARTMENT IN KOLLAM DISTRICT) displayANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ADVICE DETAILS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE PSC (CATEGORY NO.387/2014) ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10-09-2014 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C FOR CATEGORY NO. 387/2014-LPSA (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A NO. 2020 OF 2019 DATED 27-08-2020 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 402/2020 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.878 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER GAZETTE DATED 10.09.2014 FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.

NO.01/2018/DOM DATED 23.01.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 13.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY DIRECTOR OF EDN., MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.12.2018 NO.A4/39529/18 ISSUED BY THE RTI OFFICER, DDE, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.UP.C1/86/2018 DATED 24.04.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA(EKM) NO.878 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 398/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.75 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
                   RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA
                   PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR CATEGORY
                   NO.387/2014-L.P.SCHOOL             ASSISTANT
                   (MALAYALAM     MEDIUM)     IN      EDUCATION
                   DEPARTMENT IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2        A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE
                   APPOINTMENT    CHART    OF    THE    DETAILS
                   DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE PSC.
ANNEXURE A3        THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED
                   10/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. FOR
                   CATEGORY    NO.387/2014-LPSA      (MALAYALAM
                   MEDIUM).
ANNEXURE A4        A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.17/87
                   DATED 04/07/1987 ISSUED BY THE PSC.
ANNEXURE A5        TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.30/2003
                   DATED 01/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE PSC.
ANNEXURE A6        THE   TRUE   COPY    OF   THE   PROVISIONAL
                   APPOINTMENT CHART DOWNLOADED FROM THE
                   OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF PSC.
ANNEXURE A7        THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
                   23/10/2019   IN   O.A.2020/2019    OF   THIS
                   HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.NO.75 OF 2020
                   DATED 27/08/2020.
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 411/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES:-

ANNEXURE A1               TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED
                          10.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC
                          - CATEGORY NO.387/14.
ANNEXURE A2               TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST

NO.634/2018/SSV FOR CATEGORY NO.387/2014 PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND OTHERS BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA(EKM) 848 OF 2019 DATED 24.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.87 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A(EKM) NO.1235 OF 2020 IN OA (EKM) 87 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.87 OF 2020 DATED 09.09.2020.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-             NIL
 O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 & Con. Cases



                     APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 441/2020


PETITIONER ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO. 864 OF 2019
                   WITH ITS ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1        COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.9.2014
                   ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KPSC, CATEGORY
                   NO 387/14)
ANNEXURE A2        TRUE   COPY  OF    THE  RANKED   LIST  NO
                   972/2018/SSIII FOR CATEGORY NO. 387/2014
                   PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KPSC
                   DISTRICT OFFICE, KANNUR
ANNEXURE A3        COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.4.2019
                   SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE

CHAIRMAN KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO 864/2019 DATED 24.8.2020

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court