Kerala Public Service Commission vs Rajeena A on 25 February, 2025
17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on
a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer
and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141];
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721];
Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987)
4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of
Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao
Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and
Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559];
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011)
O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases
-:36:-
2025:KER:16016
12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023
KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission
[2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar
and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey
and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad
Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698];
Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission
and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v.
Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4)
KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must
know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to
prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for
elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum
mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates
could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more
competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the
O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases
-:37:-
2025:KER:16016
absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or
the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change
made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The
learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have
already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the
present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of
the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c),
Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the
service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice.
DISCUSSIONS