Dismissed

Preethy A.P. v. Indu P.

Kerala HC22 Mar 2018OP(KAT)/112/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment confirms the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing an original petition challenging the selection process for Lecturer posts. The High Court upheld the validity of merging a supplementary reservation list into the main merit list, holding that no prejudice was established by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition challenging the Tribunal's order allowing the Office Action was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's decision.

Preethy A.P. Vs Indu P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶6

-----------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1371/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENT NOS. 10 AND 20 :

¶9

1 PREETHY A.P., W/O. PRADEEP, AGED 39 YEARS, THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARATHAKAM ROAD, PURANATTUKARA P.O., TRISSUR - 680 551.

¶10

*** 2 PRINISHA K.K., AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. K.RAMAKRISHNAN, KOTTAPPADIKKAL (H), PARIYASSERI ROAD, PORLODS, PALAKKAD - 678 613.**

¶11

*** THE INITIALS OF 2**^ND PETITIONER IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2018 IS CORRECTED AS 'PRINISHA K.R'. INSTEAD OF 'PRINISHA K.K.', AS PER ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 IN I.A.NO.676/2018 IN OP(KAT) NO.112/2018.

¶12

BY ADVS.SMT.K.V.RESHMI SMT.J.DEEPTI

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENTS 1-4, 6, 11-19 AND 5 :

¶14

1. INDU P., AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. BABEESH, INDEEVARAM, MANNOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 328.

¶15

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶16

¶17

2. SREESAKHI K., AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN A.P, KRISHNA NIVAS, ORKKATTERI,

¶18

KOZHIKODE - 673 501.

¶19

3. BINDYA SASIDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. SASIDHARAN,

¶20

PRIYAM, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O.,

¶21

KANNUR - 670 014.

¶22

4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶23

OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶24

5. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶25

6. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

¶26

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶27

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶28

7. BINDIYA RAVEENDRAN,

¶29

AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SHIJITH, THAMMALIL HOUSE, KANNAMCODE,

¶30

THOOVAKKUNNU, KANNUR - 670 693.

¶31

8. THULASIDAS B.,

¶32

AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARA WARRIER, DWARAKA, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, AVADUKKA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 528.

¶33

9. ANJU RAJ,

¶34

D/O. M.G.RAJU, MADAYIL HOUSE, THUMBOLI CAPUCHIN ASRAM NORTH, ALLEPPEY NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 007.

¶35

10. LIBIN MUSLIH, D/O. A.O.MUSLIH, MADATHIL PADA NORTH,

¶36

KARUNAGAPPALLI, KOLLAM - 690 518.

¶37

11. RESHMA MAJEED, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. AMEER ALI A,

¶38

253, CHANDRANAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 007.

¶39

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶40

¶41

12. SHAHUL HAMEED M.P., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. MAMMIKUTTY M.P., MELEPEDIKAYIL HOUSE, EDAYOOR NORTH P.O., MALAPPURAM.

¶42

13. GINY GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS, W/0. EDWIN J.P., VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O.MUNDOOR, KIRALUR, THRISSUR - 680 541.

¶43

14. ASHA C., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. ANEESH, ATHIRA, NEAR VALAVANAD TEMPLE, POLLATHAI RD., ALAPPUZHA - 688 567.

¶44

15. MANI P.P., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. PIOUS P., PANDANATH HOUSE, AVANAKKOL,

¶45

KOTTUR, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR.

¶46

16. PARVATHI V., AGED 29 YEARS, T.C 25/3478, DHAROHYAR, UPPALAM RD., UR-79,

¶47

PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶48

17. IQBAL K.K., KIZHAKKEKANDIYL HOUSE, THACHAMPOYIL P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 573.

¶49

18. JAIME CHITRA K.S., AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. SACHIVOTHAMAN, KARUVATHIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR.

¶50

19. LAKSHMI P.S., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. DR.BINOY S.V., VALLABHASSERY, INDIRABHAVAN, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM

¶51

20. ARUN KUMAR C.S., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN C.G., CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KANCHIYAR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶52

21. GREESHMA N.P., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. UMESH, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 513.

¶53

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶54

¶55

R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R5 & R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶56

SRI.A.J. VARGHESE

¶57

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶58

RKM

¶59

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

JUDGMENT

Surendra Mohan, J.

The respondents 10 and 20 in O.A. No. 1371 of

¶64

2016 have filed this Original Petition challenging the order

¶65

dated 16.2.2018 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short), Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned order, the KAT has allowed the O.A. The O.A. was filed by candidates who had applied for selection and appointment to

¶66

the posts of Lecturer in Malayalam, English and Hindi pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short). The PSC published a short list on 31.7.2015 based on a preliminary OMR test

¶67

conducted on 8.8.2014 which is evidenced herein by Annexure A3. The applicants in the O.A. who are respondents 1 to 3 herein were included in the

¶68

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶69

¶70

supplementary list. They contended that, they were eligible

¶71

to be included in the main list after the second examination

¶72

was conducted, on the basis of the marks obtained in the

¶73

second test.

¶74

According to the Public Service Commission,

¶75

the first test that was conducted, was for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates. In the present case, the number

¶76

of applicants had exceeded 100 and therefore, a procedure of shortlisting was adopted. After the first test was conducted,

¶77

the PSC had drawn up a main list containing 582 candidates

¶78

and a supplementary list. The supplementary list was prepared for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of appointing persons who were entitled to the benefits of reservation. The said list was prepared by lowering the cut

¶79

off marks in the case of such persons. However, since they

¶80

were entitled to be considered for appointment to the open

¶81

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶82

¶83

vacancies also, they were included in the final list that was

¶84

published. It is contended that, the procedure adopted does

¶85

not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

¶86

According to Adv. Rashmi K.V., who appears for

¶87

the petitioners, her clients are persons who have been ranked

¶88

in the main list after the preliminary test was conducted.

¶89

However, as a result of the procedure followed by the Public

¶90

Service Commission, persons belonging to the reservation category who had not been successful in clearing the preliminary test have been included in the main list on the

¶91

basis of their rank in the supplementary list prepared. It is contended that since the supplementary list had been prepared only for the purpose of satisfying the reservation principles, such candidates are to be kept separate, to be considered for appointment only to the posts that are available to be filled up through such candidates. The

¶92

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶93

¶94

present system would confer an unfair advantage on them in

¶95

view of the fact that they would be considered for appointment to open vacancies also, causing substantial prejudice to the more competent persons who are included

¶96

in the main list on the basis of their merit. It is therefore contended that, the selection requires to be interfered with and corrected. Ann.A5 decision of the Apex Court is also

¶97

relied upon to contend that both the tests conducted are to

¶98

be taken into account for the purpose of ranking in the present case since the initial test was not conducted as a

¶99

method of shortlisting the candidates.

¶100

Per contra, Adv. P.C. Sasidharan who appears

¶101

for the PSC points out that the rank list in the present case

¶102

was prepared on the basis of a Notification that was issued in

¶103

the year 2002. The rank list was published on 21.7.2017 and

¶104

appointments are being made therefrom. There is absolutely

¶105

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶106

¶107

no averment as to how the petitioners have been prejudiced

¶108

by the procedure that has been adopted. The attempt, according to the learned counsel, is only to stall the

¶109

proceedings with ulterior motives.

¶110

Heard. This Original Petition comes up before

¶111

us for admission. The procedure adopted was to prepare a supplementary list of candidates who are entitled to the benefits of reservation and to permit them also to appear in

¶112

the second test. On the basis of the marks obtained in the

¶113

said test, the rank list has been published ranking the candidates in the order of their merit. Though it is true that the supplementary list was prepared by lowering the cut off marks of persons who are entitled to the benefits of reservation, such a procedure was necessary to satisfy the principles of reservation. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the said procedure. We notice that, preparation

¶114

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶115

¶116

of the supplementary list was for the purpose of enabling the

¶117

persons who are entitled to the benefits of reservation also to appear for the second test that was conducted. Thereafter, a common rank list has been published. Only by such a procedure, would it be possible to ensure that persons entitled to the benefits of reservation are also represented in the rank list.

¶118

Though it is a possibility that, the persons who

¶119

were ranked in the supplementary list, by lowering the cut off marks, may obtain a higher rank in the final list prepared and

¶120

may gain an advantage over some of the persons who have scored higher marks in the preliminary examination, no such instance has been brought to our notice, in the present case.

¶121

In fact, the petitioners have no case that any prejudice has been caused to them by virtue of the procedure adopted. In

¶122

the absence of evidence of any such prejudice having been

¶123

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶124

¶125

caused to the petitioners, we are not satisfied that any

¶126

interference with the impugned order of the KAT is called for.

¶127

We find that the KAT has considered the issues elaborately

¶128

and has passed a reasoned order. We confirm the same.

¶129

For the foregoing reasons, this O.P.(KAT) fails and

¶130

is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

K. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

Sd/ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶136

¶137

APPENDIX

¶138

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶139

EXHIBIT P1 : A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE PSC. EXHIBIT P2 : A COPY OF THE O.A FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P3 : A COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P4 : A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 125/2016 DATED 05.10.2017. EXHIBIT P5 : A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.1371/2016 DATED 16.02.2018 EXHIBIT P6 : A COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN ENGLISH. PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : -----------------------A1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN ENGLISH PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 30.11.2012. A2 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. A3 : COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN ENGLISH. A4 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE OBJECTIVE TYPE (ONLINE EXAMINATION).

¶140

OP(KAT).No. 112 of 2018

¶141

¶142

A5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8536 AND 8537/2015 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.

¶143

A6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2016 IN O.A. (EKM)NO.1062/2015 OF THE HON'BLE KAT.

¶144

RKM

Preethy A.P. v. Indu P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preethy A.P. v. Indu P.

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

State of Kerala Vs Ravindran N.

B.Rema Vs State of Kerala

The Principal Vs the Chairman

The State of Kerala Vs Smitha R.S.

P.Sunil Vs Union of India

K.N.Sudha Vs District Medical Officer, Health, Palakkad