Dismissed

Unnikrishnan S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2016OP(KAT)/49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to interfere with the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing a petition seeking to expand the main rank list of candidates for Police Constable Driver posts. The Court held the State's selection process was conducted within the law based on reported vacancies. The Court noted sufficient candidates were included initially and dismissed the petition, affirming the

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed; the prayer to expand the main list and direct consideration of the supplementary list was denied.

Unnikrishnan S Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 49 of 2016 (Z)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1340/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17.11.2015

¶8

PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:

¶9

UNNIKRISHNAN.S.,

¶10

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.SOMAN PILLAI, GOKULAM, ANAPPARA.P.O., VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 551.

¶11

REJIN RAJ B.R.,

¶12

AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.BABU RAJAN, REKHA MANDIRAM, PLAVARAPOIKA, KUMMIL.P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA-691 536.

¶13

SHEBIN V.S

¶14

AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SHANAVAS, VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, TOLL JUNCTION, CHULLIMANOOR, NEDUMANGADU,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 541.

¶16

SINAJ A.F

¶17

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL VAHAB,

¶18

SAJNA MANZIL, ARAMPALLY, CHULLIMANOOR.P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 541.

¶19

VISHNU K.S, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, VISHNU NIVAS, KOCHUPALODE, PANAYAMUTTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 561.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶21

SMT.RESMI G. NAIR

¶22

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶23

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, KERALA.

¶24

OP(KAT).No. 49 of 2016 (Z)

¶25

STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAURAM, KERALA-695 001.

¶26

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001.

¶27

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001.

¶28

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695004.

¶29

DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -695001.

¶30

R5 &R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶31

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

OP(KAT).No. 49 of 2016 (Z)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶35

P1 COPY OF THE OA.NO.1340/2015 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A3 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶36

P2 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN O.A.No.1340/2015.

¶37

P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2015 IN O.A.NO.1340/2015 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶38

P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2016 IN O.A.NO.2292/2015 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶39

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S3-117440/2013/PHQ DATED 16.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL.

¶41

True copy

¶42

P.A to Judge

¶43

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

¶44

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶45

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶48

Interference declined by the Tribunal with regard to the relief sought for to direct the PSC to expand the main list in respect of the post of Police Constable Driver (AP Battalion) is under challenge in this Original Petition.

¶49

The factual matrix is such that the petitioners herein, pursuant to the notification issued by the PSC for selection and appointment to the post of Police Constable Driver (AP Battalion), came to be included in Annexure-A1 rank list in Thiruvananthapuram District. As a matter of fact 127 persons were included in the main list and a supplementary list was also drawn up. The applicants were in fact included in the supplementary list. According to the applicants, there were about 500 vacancies in Thiruvananthapuram District alone. Pursuant to the reporting of vacancies, the persons in the order of seniority in the rank list were advised by the PSC and only 7 persons were

¶50

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶51

¶52

remaining in the main list of Annexure-A1 to be advised. It was in the said circumstance that the petitioners moved the PSC by filing a representation such as Annexure-A3, seeking to expand

¶53

the main list, which was not considered. Thus driving the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by filing the O.A. with the following prayers:-

¶54

i) to declare that the main list in Annexure A1 is insufficient and too short to supply candidates for advice and appointment to the post of Police Constable and therefore the PSC has got a duty to expand the main list of Annexure A1;

¶55

ii) to direct the respondents to expand the main list in Annexure A1 by including all the candidates so as to fill up all the 500 plus vacancies of Police Constable Driver in A.P.Battalion, Thiruvananthapuram;

¶56

iii) to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on Annexure A3 representation before Annexure A1 being exhausted.

¶57

The claim was resisted by the PSC with reference to

¶58

the actual facts and figures. After hearing both the sides the

¶59

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶60

¶61

Tribunal held that there was absolutely no merit and accordingly the O.A. was dismissed, which made them to approach this Court by filing the present Original Petition.

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

¶63

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC.

¶64

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a mandatory duty upon the PSC to initiate and finalise the process of selection following the mandate of the relevant Rules, which as such has not been done by the PSC. Sufficient number of candidates were never included in the main list, despite the availability of vacancies, which has adversely affected the rights and interests of the persons like the petitioners who came to be placed in the supplementary list. The learned counsel further points out that, once the remaining 7 vacancies are also advised and filled up, the main list will be exhausted, upon which, there will not be any independent existence for the supplementary list and hence the main list requires to be expanded. Under similar circumstance, in relation to the situation in the District of Pathanamthitta, a similar request was made and

¶65

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶66

¶67

the Tribunal was pleased to direct the PSC to consider the representation filed for expansion of list for Pathanamthitta District, which relief was in fact denied to the petitioners herein and hence the grievance.

¶68

The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submits that the PSC has already filed a counter affidavit giving the factual particulars. It is stated that only 23 vacancies of Police Constable Driver (Armed Police Battalion) for Thiruvananthapuram District were notified in the Gazette dated 29.7.2011 showing the last date for application as 31.8.2011. Altogether 4,254 candidates had applied for the post, who were called for an 'OMR test' on 9.5.2013; among whom 2,133 candidates turned up for the test. After completing the process of selection, the Commission decided to include 300 candidates in the main list of the short list for the post of SAP Battalion for Thiruvananthapuram. Based on the marks secured in the 'OMR test', a short list was also prepared and published on 1.4.2014 including 289 candidates in the main list and 694 candidates in the different supplementary lists. Thereafter the physical measurement and practical test for

¶69

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶70

¶71

the proficiency in driving were conducted on 5.5.2014 to 16.5.2014 and it was thereafter, that the rank list was published on 17.11.2014 showing the names of 127 candidates in the main list and 306 candidates in various supplementary lists. This being the position, it is stated that the procedure completed by the PSC is well within the four walls of the law and is not assailable under any circumstance.

¶72

The factual particulars are sought to be explained further by the PSC as given in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit which are re-produced below:-

¶73

“4. The number of candidates to be included in a Short List depends on the number of vacancies reported by the Appointing Authority, number of candidates advised from the previous Ranked List and the number of vacancies existing unfilled after the expiry of previous Ranked List. At the time of deciding actual number of candidates to be included in the Short List, only 23 vacancies were reported. Therefore decision to include 983 candidates in the Short List is as per rules and there is no mistake on the part of the

¶74

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶75

¶76

Commission. It can be seen that around 300 candidates were included in the Main list of the Short list published by the PSC. But the number of candidates included in the Main list of the Ranked list for the post happened to be less, only due to the poor performance of candidates in the further selection process including physical measurement and Practical Test.

¶77

At the time of publication of Ranked List, there existed 74 vacancies. Later 56 vacancies including NJD vacancies were also reported by the appointing authority. Altogether 130 candidates have been advised for appointment so far. The latest advice from the Ranked List was made on 15.12.2015 and the details of advice made are as follows:

¶78

OC	E	SC	ST	RA M	NK U LC	PTO OBC	WHIC V	H ADVISED SIUCN/AI	HINDU N	OX	D
118	WITHIN OC	SL-5	SL-2	123	126	SL-1	SL-1	WITHIN OC	WITHIN OC	SL-1	WITHIN OC

¶79

Since the position has already been explained by the

¶80

PSC by filing an affidavit, no purpose will be served by simply directing the PSC to consider Annexure-A3 representation seeking for the relief for expansion of the main list. On the contrary, the facts and figures pointed out by the PSC as per their affidavit

¶81

O.P.(KAT)No.49 of 2016

¶82

¶83

clearly reveal that there was nothing wrong on their part in conducting the process of selection and publication of the rank list. This Court finds that no tenable ground has been raised in this original petition to call for interference.

¶84

The O.P.(KAT) is dismissed accordingly.

¶85

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶86

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶87

skj

¶88

True copy

¶89

P.A to Judge

Unnikrishnan S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan S v. State of Kerala

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

Director of Accounts (Postal) Vs N. Karthikeyan Pillai

S.Unnikrishnan Nair Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs Suneesh T.

Union of India & Others Vs P.R.Gangadharan

Sajan T.Sunny Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India and Others Vs K.Raghavan and Another