Kerala High Court
Biju V vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 26 February, 2020
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.247 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13957/2018(D) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 BIJU V.,
AGED 45 YEARS
AKSHAGAMYA, KARIMPADAM PARAMBA, KALLAI, CALICUT-
673003.
2 NOORJAHAN M.,
KOKKILATTU HOUSE, MANNUR P.O., CALICUT-673328.
3 JEEJESH K.,
SAYUJYAM, PAYAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673571.
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE-673001.
3 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KOZHIKODE-
673001.
R1-2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.293/2019, WA.2325/2019, THE COURT ON 26-02-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases
..2..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA,
1941
WA.No.293 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21036/2018(D) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 PREETHA E.D.
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT ERANOOR
MANA, VASUPURAM, MATTATHOORKUNNU, THRISSUR.
2 CARMEL THOMAS
CARMEL VILLA, MATHILIL.P.O., KADAVOOR, KOLLAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
(SECRETARIAT OF CHAIRMAN) THE KERALAL PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases
..3..
3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 PATHANATHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.NO.4365, NEAR KSRTC, MYLAPRA ROAD,
PATHANAMTHITTA
689671. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
5 THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPEARTIVE BANK LTD.
KURUPPAM ROAD, TOWN BRANCH, THRISSUR-680001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
R1-2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R4 BY SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, DIST.CO.OP.BANK,PTA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.247/2019, WA.2325/2019, THE COURT ON
26-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases
..4..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.2325 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5419/2016(B) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
MANOJ KUMAR K
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR,
KOMBRATH HOUSE, VENKITANG P O,
THRISSUR-680510.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001.
3 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SAHAKARANA SADABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHU PADAM,
TUDA ROAD, THRISSUR-680022.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.247/2019, WA.293/2019, THE COURT ON 26-02-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases
..5..
---------------------------------
WA Nos. 247, 293 & 2325 of 2019
---------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2020 K.Vinod Chandran, J.
The short question agitated before this Court is as to whether the appellants would be entitled to claim the benefit of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is produced as Ext.P4 dated 21.08.2017 in WA No.247 of 2019.
2. On brief facts, it has to be noticed that the appellants were all persons, who possess B.Com (Co-operation), and they applied pursuant to a notification dated 14.12.2009 (Ext.P1 in WA Nos.247/2019 & 2325/2019). The said notification does not, among the required qualifications, provide B.Com (Co-operation) as WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..6..
an eligible qualification. Later, the Kerala Co-operative Society Rules were amended and in Rule 186, B.Com (Co-operation) was also made one of the eligible qualifications. This amendment was carried out on 02.11.2010. In the meanwhile, the last date of application was over. The appellants were persons, who applied pursuant to the original notification itself. Certain other persons having B.Com (Co-operation), approached this Court contending that B.Com (Co-operation) should be treated as a qualification eligible for consideration even under the original notification of 2009, especially, since it is a higher qualification than the ones notified. A Division Bench of this Court rejected the contention on the ground that the amendment came later to the notification and have only prospective application. The unsuccessful appellants therein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which Ext.P4 order (WA No.247 WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..7..
of 2019) was passed. Ext.P4 is extracted hereunder:
"Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellants have completed B.Com. Degree with Co-operation as a special subject and applied for the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Banks in the State of Kerala, in pursuance of Notification dated 14th December, 2009 issued by the Public Service Commission. They have been held to be ineligible on the ground that prior to Notification dated 2nd November, 2010, they did not have diploma in co-operation, as required, even if they had a B.Com. Degree with Co-operation as a special subject. The High Court has held that Notification dated 2nd November, 2010 which makes them eligible will apply prospectively.
We are of the view that the said notification was in the nature of clarification and the object of selection being to get the best candidates, the appellants could not be excluded from being considered.
Accordingly we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellants be considered eligible in the process of selection. It is made clear that any appointments already made need not be disturbed."
(Underlining by us for emphasis)
3. The appellants herein were not parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge found delay and laches to be standing against the consideration of the appellants WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..8..
herein as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellants had never challenged the notification and had applied under the same, fully aware of their disqualification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge found, confined the relief to the appellants in the Civil Appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this would result in gross injustice since all the 35 appellants in the Civil Appeal if appointed to the vacant posts, the appellants herein as also other candidates with B.Com (Co-operation), who had applied under the very same notification and appeared for the written test, having more marks than the persons who had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would be excluded from consideration. It is argued that the correct approach would have been to direct the PSC to recast the entire selection list and keep the appointments already made undisturbed, but to WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..9..
make appointments to the 35 vacancies kept apart on orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, from the 35 persons, who come high up in the rank list, which also has to be subject to the rules of rotation for reservation. This procedure would not confine the consideration to the appellants in the Civil Appeals. Otherwise they would steal a march over the other candidates who had better rank in the selection. They cannot be permitted that privilege only because they challenged the notification before Courts. The declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, of the amendment being clarificatory would equally benefit all candidates, who appeared under the notification. In fact, it is pointed out that the PSC, on Ext. P4 has allowed even those appellants in the Civil Appeal, who had not applied under the notification to make applications for whom a separate test was also conducted.
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..10..
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the amendment to be in the nature of a clarification. It was also observed that the object of selection is to get the best candidate; which object would be frustrated if only the 35 appellants in the Civil Appeal are considered for appointment.
6. We are of the opinion that the said reliefs cannot be granted by us, especially, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confined the relief to the appellants therein. We specifically refer to the underlined portion in the extracted order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which underlining has been supplied by us for emphasis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that there should be no disturbance of persons already appointed and also declared that the appellants be considered eligible in the process of selection. In such circumstances, the appellants in the Civil Appeal could only WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..11..
be considered and none others. If we direct a rank list to be drawn up of all the applicants, then it could prejudice all or some of the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, who are not parties before us. We are of the opinion that the appeals are to be dismissed affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeals are dismissed without any order on costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Bka/26.02.2020 WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases ..12..
APPENDIX OF WA 2325/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.10.2013 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.31237/2013.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10712/2017 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.