The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition challenging a Kerala Administrative Tribunal order regarding the recasting of a rank list for District Educational Officer vacancies. The Court held the challenge was highly belated and not liable to be interfered with after 1½ years, declining to reopen a final matter despite new Supreme Court rulings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938
OP(KAT).No. 79 of 2016 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 467/2014 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31-12-2014
PETITIONERS/APPLICANT NO.7 & 5:
BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4, 6 & 8 TO 10:
OP(KAT).No. 79 of 2016 (Z)
KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD - 678 702.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 79 of 2016 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.10.2015 IN SLP No.28743/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL.
True copy
P.A to Judge
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
O.P.(KAT)No.79 of 2016
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioners are before this Court challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.467/2014 about 1½ years back. Challenge is against Ext.P1 order directing the PSC to recast Annexure-A2 rank list. The O.A. was filed by the 1st respondent herein with the following prayers:-
allowing the relief as stated in paragraph 8 of the said verdict
(Ext.P1) which is reproduced hereunder:-
O.P.(KAT)No.79 of 2016
2
“8. We notice that the point raised by the applicant is squarely covered in her favour by the order of this Tribunal dated 20.2.2014 in O.A.No.2395 of 2013 and connected cases and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 8.8.2014 in OP(KAT)No.108 of 2014 and connected cases. In view of the above position, the applicant is entitled to succeed. It is declared that the inclusion of persons who secured less than 75 marks in the OMR test in the main list of List A of Annexure A2 is ultra vires and unauthorised. The Public Service Commission shall recast Annexure A2 excluding those persons who were illegally included in the main list of List A of Annexure A2. This the Public Service Commission shall do within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The candidates who were already appointed before 3.3.2014 based on the advices made from Annexure A2 need not be disturbed. They are rank Nos.2 to 6 and 29. The advices of candidates who were not appointed before 3.3.2014 shall be revised by the Public Service Commission if it is found upon revision of Annexure A2 that they are ineligible to be advised. The Public Service Commission shall make fresh advices to the vacancies reported and pending with it and also to the vacancies to which though candidates were advised, but appointments were not made, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
O.P.(KAT)No.79 of 2016
3
order. The first respondent shall report all available vacancies in the cadre of District Educational Officer which could be filled up from Annexure A2 rank list to the third respondent so as to reach the office of the said respondent before the close of office hours on 22.1.2015.
The Original Application is allowed as above with costs which shall be paid by the Public Service Commission.”
from the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court reported in
Rabindra Nath Bose & others Vs. Union of India & others
(AIR 1970 SC 470) .
O.P.(KAT)No.79 of 2016
4
ruling could not have been a ground for review and as such, the petitioners would not have been justified if at all they had moved the Tribunal seeking review of the order already passed. When the said course is not open and the matter has attained finality, the petitioners are now seeking to have it re-opened by approaching this Court after 1½ years. Under exactly similar circumstance, we have dealt with the matter in detail and interference was declined as per judgment dated 10.6.2016 in O.P.(KAT).No.376/2015. We hold that the verdict passed by us in O.P.(KAT).No.376/2015 will govern the issue in this case as well. Accordingly interference is declined and the Original Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
skj
True copy
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order directing the recasting of a rank list is liable to be intercepted given a subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
Whether a subsequent ruling constitutes a valid ground for review of an order that has already attained finality.
Whether this Court should interfere with a matter that is highly belated and was not pursued for 1½ years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rabindra Nath Bose & others Vs. Union of India & othersReferred¶56
AIR 1970 SC 470 · Who else cites this
O.P.(KAT)No.376/2015Distinguished¶62
FAIZY.A
FEROZ BABU K.M.
HONEY G.ALEXANDER
STATE OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
