Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Suneesh T.

Kerala HC26 May 2016OP(KAT)/44/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court rejected an original petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order directed at the State Police Chief. The Court declined interference since the aggrieved petitioners had an available remedy in the form of a review application before the Tribunal itself. The Court dismissed the petition without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying cont

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to approach Tribunal for review.

State of Kerala Vs Suneesh T. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 44 of 2016 (Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 539/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 05-04-2016

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN O.A:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶12

DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 001.

¶14

THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS,

¶15

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶16

KERALA - 695 010

¶17

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.S.MANILAL

¶18

SRI K.C. VINCENT

¶19

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.A:

¶20

SUNEESH T. S/O.SASI.T., RESIDING AT SUKRITHAM, PURATHE VAYALIL, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA, PIN: 673 012, KOZHIKODE, KERALA

¶21

SUBIN BABU K., S/O.BABU K, RESIDING AT PALASSERY HOUSE, FEROKE, PETTTAH, KOZHIKODE, KERALA 673 631.

¶22

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 004

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BALAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R1 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶24

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

OP(KAT).No. 44 of 2016 (Z)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶28

---------------------------------P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.539/2016 P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/4/2016 IN OA NO.539/2016

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

dsn

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶34

O.P.(KAT)No.44 of 2016

¶35

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Anil K.Narendran, J.

¶38

The petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.539 of 2016 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking an order directing the State Police Chief, the 2^nd petitioner herein to report all the vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in Police (General Executive Branch), available for direct recruitment by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the 3^rd respondent, herein before 13.4.2016, with a further direction to the 3^rd respondent to advise candidates against those vacancies from Annexure A1 ranked list published by the 3^rd respondent, which was brought into force with effect from 11.9.2013.

¶39

By Ext.P2 order dated 5.4.2016, the Tribunal directed the State Police Chief, who is the common respondent in O.A.No.539 of 2016 and connected O.As., to provisionally report 285 vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee), Police

¶40

O.P.(KAT)No.44/2016

¶41

¶42

(General Executive Branch) to the 3^rd respondent, the Kerala Public Service Commission, so as to reach the PSC before the expiry of the office hours on 11.4.2016. The Tribunal has made it clear that the reporting of vacancies as above will be provisional and none of the candidates will be advised by the PSC. Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is a common order in O.A.No.539 of 2016 and connected cases.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader would contend that Annexure A1 ranked list had already expired on 26.5.2015 and as such the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order without noticing the said fact. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that there are no vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in Police (General Executive Branch), in which the candidates included in Annexure A1 ranked list could be advised. Since the Tribunal, passed Annexure A2 order without giving an opportunity to the petitioners herein to file a statement or counter affidavit, the said facts could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 (applicants before the Tribunal) would

¶45

O.P.(KAT)No.44/2016

¶46

¶47

contend that Annexure A1 ranked list is still in force and the candidates included in the said ranked list are legally entitled to be advised against the 285 available vacancies ordered to be reported to the 3^rd respondent by Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel would also point out that, the right of the petitioners herein are well protected, in as much as, the Tribunal has made it clear that the reporting of vacancies will be provisional and none of the candidates will be advised by the 3^rd respondent.

¶48

We have considered the rival contentions raised at the

¶49

Bar.

¶50

The main grievance of the petitioners is that, since Annexure A1 ranked list had already expired on 26.5.2015 and since there are no vacancies in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in Police (General Executive Branch), in which the candidates included in the said ranked list could be advised, the Tribunal erred in passing Ext.P2 order, that also, even without affording the petitioners an opportunity to file statement or counter affidavit.

¶51

The grievance raised by the learned Government

¶52

O.P.(KAT)No.44/2016

¶53

¶54

Pleader, as stated above, is one which can be raised before the Tribunal by filing an application for review of Ext.P2 order. Since such a remedy is available against Ext.P2 order, we deem it appropriate not to entertain this Original Petition. We also notice that Ext.P2 order is one dated 5.4.2016, against which the petitioners moved this Original Petition before this Court on 11.4.2016, well within the time limit prescribed for filing a review petition before the Tribunal.

¶55

In that view of the matter, we decline interference in this Original Petition and relegate the petitioners to approach the Tribunal in an appropriate application seeking review of Ext.P2 order. If any such application is filed by the petitioners within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the Tribunal shall consider the same on merits, by treating it as one filed within the prescribed time for filing review.

¶56

Subject to the above right of the petitioners, this Original Petition is dismissed.

¶57

It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions raised by both sides and it is for the Tribunal to consider the said application for review in

¶58

O.P.(KAT)No.44/2016

¶59

¶60

accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon as

¶61

expeditiously as possible.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶64

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶65

dsn

¶66

True copy

¶67

P.S. to Judge

State of Kerala v. Suneesh T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Suneesh T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binutha Thomas Vs Union of India

Pookoya N.P Vs the Administrator, Union Territory

Rajesh Kumar G Vs State of Kerala

Director of Accounts (Postal) Vs N. Karthikeyan Pillai

S.Unnikrishnan Nair Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs P.A. Manikandan