Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Swapna Sukumar vs State Of Kerala . on 8 January, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Abhay Manohar Sapre
C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 25636-25637/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/06/2013
in OP No. 1643/2013 and OP No. 1861/2013 passed by the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam)
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With application for impleadment as party respondent and interim
relief and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 25703/2013
[SEENAMOL C.A. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.]
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
SLP(C) NO. 26232 OF 2013
[PREETHA G. DAS V. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR.]
(With office report)
SLP(C) NO. 26261 OF 2013
[RINCY GEORGE & ANR.V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.]
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
SLP(C) NO. 1385 OF 2014
[MUMTAZ K. V. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.]
(With office report)
SLP(C) NO. 14583 OF 2014
[AMBILY B. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.]
(With application for permission to place additional documents
on record and application for directions and application for
impleadment as party respondent and interim relief and Office
Report)
SLP(C) NO. 14631 OF 2014]
Signature Not Verified
[SUPREETHA B. & ORS. V. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &
Digitally signed by
ORS.]
Kalyani Gupta
Date: 2015.02.21
12:26:20 IST
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Reason:
C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013
SLP(C) NO. 23467 OF 2013
[CHITRA M. & ORS. V. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.]
(With office report)
SLP(C) NOS. 24569 OF 2014
[JESSY M.D. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.]
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
SLP(C) NOS. 33217-33220 OF 2014
[UDAYA K AND ANR. ETC. ETC. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC.]
(With office report)
Date : 08/01/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Petitioner(s)
in SLP 25636-67,
25703, 26232, 26261 Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (in SLP 25636-67)
Mr. K. Rajeev, A.O.R.
Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Adv.
in SLP 1385
Mr. E.M.S. Anam, A.O.R.
in SLP 14583 Mr. P.A. Noor Muhammed, A.O.R.
Ms. Giffara S., Adv.
In SLP 14631 &
33217-33220 Mr. C.S. Rajan, Sr. Adv.(in SLP 14631)
Mr. A. Raghunath, A.O.R.
in SLP 23467 Mr. Sajith P. Warrier, A.O.R.
Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Adv.
in SLP 24569 Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv.
Mr. Hardeep Singh, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, A.O.R.
For Impleader (s)
in SLP 25636-67 Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv.
Ms. Reena Roy, Adv.
PAGE NO. 2 OF3
C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013
Ms. Seema Jain, Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal, A.O.R.
in SLP 26232 Mr. Prasanth P., A.O.R.
For Respondent(s)
For State Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv.
Ms. C.Y. Dhinoja, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, A.O.R.
For RR 2 & 3 in SLP
25636-67, 25703, 26261
& 14583 and both rrs
in SLP 26232 & all 3
rrs in SLP 24569 Mr. Vipin Nair, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Shrisagar, Adv.
For M/s. Temple Law Firm, Advs.
For RR 4 & 5 in SLP
26261 Mr. Ranjith K. C., A.O.R.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard all the learned counsel for the parties. IA NO.5 is an application for impleadment as party respondents and the same is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly. The newly added respondent shall also be entitled to the same benefit which has not been granted to the appellants in these appeals.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable order with no order as to costs.
[KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED REPORTABLE ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] PAGE NO. 3 OF3 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 226-227 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 25636-25637 OF 2013] SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 25703 OF 2013] SEENAMOL C.A. ….. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 26232 OF 2013] PREETHA G. DAS ….. APPELLANT VERSUS KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. ….. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 26261 OF 2013] RINCY GEORGE & ANR. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS PAGE NO. 1 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 232 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 1385 OF 2014] MUMTAZ K. ….. APPELLANT VERSUS KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 14583 OF 2014] AMBILY B. ….. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 14631 OF 2014] SUPREETHA B. & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 23467 OF 2013] CHITRA M. & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 24569 OF 2014] JESSY M.D. ….. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS PAGE NO. 2 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 240-243 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 33217-33220 OF 2014] UDAYA K AND ANR. ETC. ETC. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ….. RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted.
2. Heard all the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal held that in order to be eligible to get appointed to the post of High School Assistant(Physical Sciences), the selection of candidates pursuant to the Notification dated 30th April, 2008 can be made only if the candidates had qualified the Graduation/Post Graduation either in Physics or if the concerned candidate is a Chemistry Graduate, Physics as an ancillary subject. All the appellants before this Court are stated to be Graduates in Chemistry as main subject and some of them have also acquired Post Graduation in Chemistry. It is also not in dispute that all the appellants have, however, acquired B.Ed. Qualification in Physical Sciences. Keeping in mind the above factor we have to examine the issue which has cropped up before us. PAGE NO. 3 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013
4. By the Notification dated 30th April, 2008, applications were called for, for the post of High School Assistant(Physical Sciences) by way of District-wise selection. The required qualification prescribed as per the Rule reads : “Physics or Chemistry as main subject for graduation”.[Emphasis added]
5. It is to be noted that apart from Physics or Chemistry, Degree in Home Science was also prescribed as a qualification for the post of High School Assistant(Physical Sciences). It is, however, stated that by a Notification issued on 25 th November, 2009 Home Science was deleted as one of the qualifications for a candidate to be eligible to apply for High School Assistant(Physical Sciences). The appellants having been fully qualified as per the Rule, which was prevailing at the time of the Notification dated 30 th April, 2008, their candidature was considered and it is common ground that in the Ranking List published on 14 th June, 2011, 18th October, 2011, 28th November, 2012, 28th December, 2011, 4th January, 2012, 2nd February, 2012, 6th February, 2012, 15th February, 2012, 21st February, 2012, and 12th March, 2012, their names were included in the said Ranking List.
PAGE NO. 4 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013
6. Subsequently, when the names of the appellants were deleted from the Ranking List, though some of the candidates who were identically qualified and placed in the beginning part of the same Ranking List, came to be appointed. The appellants approached the Tribunal challenging the deletion. The Tribunal having declined to grant any relief approached the High Court and by the impugned order the Division Bench also declined to grant any relief.
7. While rejecting the claim of the appellants what weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court was the content of the reasoning mentioned in the Notification dated 25th November, 2009 in G.O.M.S. No. 2007 of 2009. In paragraph 2 of the said Notification it was stated as under:-
“2. Physics is one of the basic subjects of Engineering and Technology. For teaching Physics in High School Classes, a thorough knowledge of the subjects Physics and Mathematics is absolutely essential. For B.Sc. Home Science (main), Zoology/Botany and Chemistry are the subsidiaries. Therefore, teaching of Physics in High School Classes by a teacher with B.Sc. Home Science (main), who has not studied in Physics at graduate level is not desirable. It will adversely affect the qualify of teaching Physics in High School classes.”[Emphasis added]
8. The Tribunal as well as the Division Bench was, therefore, persuaded to hold that the appellants who PAGE NO. 5 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 were qualified Chemistry/Physics Graduates/Post Graduates who did not have either Physics or Chemistry as ancillary subjects were ineligible. Apart from the above referred to G.O., there was no other substantive objection which was placed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court in order to disentitle the appellants from challenging the order of deletion of their names from the Ranking List.
9. When we heard learned counsel for the appellants, we find that as on the date when Notification dated 30 th April, 2008 was issued, the qualification as prescribed was Graduation in Physics or Chemistry as main subject along with Bachelor's Degree in Physical Sciences as a basic subject. Therefore going by the Rule which prevailed as on the date of the issuance of the Notification calling for applications, it is not in dispute that all the appellants were duly qualified to apply for the post and the second respondent Public Service Commission also duly considered their applications and all their names were ultimately included in the Ranking List prepared by the second respondent. Even, as on date, it is stated that the said qualification continued to remain for the post of PAGE NO. 6 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 High School Assistant(Physical Sciences).
10. Therefore, when we examine the relevant Rule, it will have to be stated that the appellants were fully qualified and, were therefore, fully eligible to apply for the post and the second respondent, therefore, was justified in having accepted their applications and including their names in the Ranking List. Even otherwise, in all the present cases, qualification of Physics or Chemistry as ancillary subject which was required to be considered as a relevant qualification, though the same was not strictly prescribed under the Rule, it is not in dispute that all the appellants were all B.Ed. qualified candidates in Physical Sciences. Therefore, such a qualification acquired by the appellants should enure to their benefit for the present selection. We, therefore, find that deletion of the names of the appellants in the Ranking List was effected solely on the ground that they did not possess Physics or Chemistry as ancillary subject along with their main Degree/Post Graduate Degree in Chemistry or Physics.
11. Therefore, without setting up as a precedent, in future selections, the second respondent-Public Service Commission can be directed to carry out the exercise of PAGE NO. 7 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 making the present recruitment and appointment pursuant to the Notification dated 30th April, 2008 considering the Rank List by strictly applying the Rules as it existed on the date of that Notification which prescribed the qualifications. When the second respondent and the State extended the said benefit to those candidates in the Ranking List who were fortunate to have their names appear in the beginning part of the same Ranking List, there is no reason to deny the said benefit to those whose names appeared in the bottom of the list.
12. We are convinced that the appellants should not be deprived of their consideration for being appointed based on the Ranking List already prepared by the second respondent-Commission. In this respect it will also be relevant to note the stand of the first respondent in the additional affidavit filed before this Court on 4 th September, 2014. Realising the strenuous exercise carried out by the second respondent-Commission, the need for appointment of High School Assistants which arose right from the year 2008 in the districts, apparently the first respondent thought it fit to file the above said additional affidavit taking the stand PAGE NO. 8 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 that the candidates included in the Ranking List, in question, can be exempted from the purview of its own decision which it took with reference to the Home Science candidates which was deleted from the Rule providing for prescription of qualification for the post of High School Assistants (Physical Sciences). While appreciating the above-said stand, in the present juncture, we hold that going by the Rule prescribed by which the appellants were entitled to apply for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Sciences), the second respondent - Service Commission having considered their merits, included their names in the Ranking List, they are entitled to be considered for appointments based on their merit in the Ranking List. We are, therefore, of the view that the deletion made by the second respondent
-Commission of the names of the appellants in the Ranking List cannot be allowed to stand.
13. The orders of the second respondent - Commission i.e. the Show Cause notices referred to in the Statement hereunder pursuant to which the deletion of the names of the appellants from the Ranking List mentioned against them came to be deleted are set aside. PAGE NO. 9 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 S.No. Name of the Appellant Date of Show Cause Notice Date of Ranking List
1. Swapna Sukumar 06.11.2012 12.03.2012
2. Naseera P.K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
3. Vinod Kumar 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
4. Jamsheena K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
5. Sheharban K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
6. Sumeera K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
7. Seenamol C.A. 30.04.2013 28.11.2012
8. Preetha G. Das 25.03.2013 18.10.2011
9. Rincy George 20.04.2013 12.03.2012
10. Anish Kumar C.A. 20.04.2013 12.03.2012
11. Mumtaz K. 13.03.2013 21.02.2012
12. Ambily B. 27.03.2013 02.02.2012
13. Supreetha B. 07.06.2013 04.01.2012
14. Jisha B. 07.06.2013 04.01.2012
15. Jamna C. 07.06.2013 04.01.2012
16. Chitra M. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
17. Gireesh K.M. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
18. Sajira Beegum A. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
19. Soudath T. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
20. Jessy M.D. 09/09/2013 28/12/2011
21. Udaya K. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
22. Prameela T. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
23. Pushpaveni P.R. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
24. Prasanth Kumar 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
25. Rajesh Kumar S. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
26. Sheenappa B. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
27. Archana T. 20/01/2014 28/12/2011
14. The names of the appellants in the Ranking List dated 14th June, 2011, 18th October, 2011, 28th November, 2012, 28th December, 2011, 4th January, 2012, 2nd February, 2012, 6th February, 2012, 15th February, 2012, 21st February, 2012, and 12th March, 2012, shall stand PAGE NO. 10 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 restored and the respondents are directed to operate the said Ranking List on its own merits and wherever it finds the appellants suitable and vacancies remain, appointment order shall be issued expeditiously. The first respondent and the second respondent-Commission shall carry out the above-said exercise in accordance with the procedure prescribed expeditiously preferably within a period of two months.
15. We make it clear that we pass the above said order in the peculiar facts of these cases. This cannot be, however, quoted as a precedent in future recruitments. Since the appellants were fighting this litigation by approaching the Tribunal at the earliest point of time and have come up to this Court, it is needless to state that the expiry of the Ranking List should not stand in the way for considering the names of the appellants for issuing the appointment orders in accordance with the procedure prescribed as directed in this order.
16. IA 4 in appeal arising out SLP 14583/2014 is dismissed with liberty to work out the remedy if any in accordance with law before an appropriate forum.
17. IA 5 in appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 is an application for impleadment as party PAGE NO. 11 OF12 C.A. Nos.... of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25636-25637 of 2013 respondents and the same is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly. The newly added respondent shall also be entitled to the same benefit which has now been granted to the appellants in these appeals.
17. The appeals are allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.
…...................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] …...................................J [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] NEW DELHI JANUARY 08, 2015.
PAGE NO. 12 OF12