Allowed

Jaya.S.Anand v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Kerala HC20 Mar 2013OP(KAT)/2045/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While considering petitions challenging a notification classifying locomotor disability by location of limbs, the Court held that where ranked lists had expired, the notification was arbitrary and ultra vires. The Government must issue an errata to modify the list, retain interviewed candidates, and report available vacancies for the relevant category before issuing further advice.

What did the court decide?

Voided the impugned notification as arbitrary; directed the Government to issue an erratum modifying the list to retain interviewed candidates and report vacancies; directed consideration of candidate

Jaya.S.Anand Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

OP(KAT).No. 2045 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA NO.16/2011 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22/05/2012

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN O.A.:

¶8

JAYA.S.ANAND, OORAPRA HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM.P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 580.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA SRI.RACHEL JOSEPH SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA SMT.R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN O.A.:

¶11

1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 004.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR,

¶14

KERALA HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW

¶16

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2013 ALONG WITH OPKAT. NO.2068/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

OP(KAT)NO.2045/2012 Z

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2011 IN OA.NO.16/2011 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.16/2011 WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA.NO.16/2011.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/

¶24

P.S.TO JUDGE Kss

¶25

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan &

¶26

B.Kemal Pasha, JJ.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(KAT).Nos.2045, 2068, 3271, 3286 & 4355 of 2012

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2013

¶29

Judgment

¶30

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶31

1.These original petitions relate to an issue as to whether the Government would be justified in classifying locomotor disability for the purpose of Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 into further categories of “upper extremities” and “lower extremities”, that is to say, make a distinction between hands and legs. The Tribunal held that there is apparent arbitrariness. It further relegated the parties to move the Government. In the meanwhile, the Government had submitted before this Court that it is dropping the intention to make further classification as noted above and to leave it as was originally designed.

¶32

2.With the passage of time, it is now pointed out,

¶33

OP(KAT)2045/12 & con.cases -: 2 :-

¶34

quite rightly, by the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission, that except in OP (KAT).No.4355 of 2012 in which the notification itself was challenged, ranked lists have already expired and no purpose will be achieved as no further relief could be granted to the petitioners therein. However, in OP(KAT).No.4355 of 2012, there was an interim order on 14.12.2012 that the Public Service Commission shall interview the petitioners in that original petition for the post they had applied before publishing the select list and that their selection will be subject to the result of the original petition. OP(KAT).No.4355 of 2012 relates to selection by special recruitment from physically handicapped for the purpose of filling up 3% backlog vacancies of Medical Officer (Homoeo) during 2004-2007 (State-wide).

¶35

3.As the law now stands, in matters where the ranked lists had expired having run out the maximum time limit of validity of 4½ years, it

¶36

OP(KAT)2045/12 & con.cases -: 3 :-

¶37

would not be possible even for the Courts to enlarge the time limit and there is no authority to do so, going by the binding precedents. The notification challenged in the proceedings from which OP(KAT).No.4355 of 2012 arises cannot but be held as plainly arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution, having regard to the views of the learned Tribunal in the different judgments rendered in these matters which we affirm hereby. The said notification has, therefore, to be modified, and PSC will have to take steps to issue such erratum notification as may be necessary to preserve those who had already applied in time but also bring in those who have escaped from the zone of consideration. This means that the candidates who had already applied and had been interviewed with reference to qualifications etc. would be retained and the zone of choice will not be expanded beyond the last date of the first notification impugned in the proceedings that led to OP(KAT).No.4355 of 2012. The ranked list, if any, will be modified

¶38

OP(KAT)2045/12 & con.cases -: 4 :-

¶39

accordingly after due process. No advice will be made until such exercise is carried out, and the Government shall report all available vacancies for being filled up in the relevant category from that group for which special recruitment is resorted to.

¶40

4.In so far as the other original petitions are concerned, it is directed that any candidate in that list shall be considered for being advised, having regard to the contents of GO(P). No.23/13/SJD dated 19.3.2013 by which the Government has rectified the anomalies; subject of course, to the availability of any among those in any of the ranked lists, if still alive.

¶41

The original petitions ordered accordingly.

¶42

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge

¶43

B.Kemal Pasha Judge

¶44

aks/Sha

Jaya.S.Anand v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya.S.Anand v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.v.Joseph Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Canara Bank Vs Paramount Paper Products Rep.by Propr.

Tresa Xavier Vs Marysimon

Surendran Nair.K. Vs Abdul Vaheed

John Bernard Vs State Bank of Travancore

Union of India Vs a.Bijukumar