Dismissed

Greeshma N.P v. Indu P

Kerala HC14 Mar 2018OP(KAT)/89/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this original petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order confirming the Kerala Public Service Commission's appointment procedures. The court held that the method of creating a supplementary list for reservation candidates to retain eligibility for open vacancies, while maintaining a common merit-based rank list, is legally valid and causes no proven pr

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the KAT order was dismissed by confirming the KAT's order allowing the O.A.

Greeshma N.P Vs Indu P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939

¶4

OP(KAT).No. 89 of 2018

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/5TH RESPONDENT IN THE O.A.

¶7

GREESHMA N.P., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.UMESH, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA, KOZHIKODE-673513.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 20 IN THE O.A.:

¶10

INDU P., AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.BABEESH, INDEEVARAM, MANNOOR (P.O), KOZHIKODE-673328.

¶11

SREESAKHI K., AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNAN A.P., KRISHNA NIVAS, ORKKATTERI, KOZHIKODE-673501.

¶12

BINDYA SASIDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARAN, PRIYAM, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR-670014.

¶13

THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

O.P.(KAT)89/2018

¶16

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

BINDIYA RAVEENDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.SHIJITH, THAMMALI HOUSE, KANNAMCODE, THOOVAKKUNNU, KANNUR-670693. 8. THULASIDAS B., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARA WARRIER, DWARAKA, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, AVADUKKA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673528. 9. ANUJA RAJ, D/O.M.G.RAJU, MADAYIL HOUSE, THUMBOLI CAPUCHIN ASRAM NORTH, ALLEPPEY NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688007. 10. LIBIN MUSLIH, D/O.A.O.MUSLIN, MADATHIL PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLI, KOLLAM-690518. 11. RESHMA MAJEED, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.AMEER ALI A., 253, CHANDRANAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678007. 12. PREETHY A.P., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.PRADEEP, THAZATHUPARAMBIL, MARATHAKAM ROAD, PURANATTUKARTA P.O., THRISSUR-680551. 13. SHAHUL HAMEED M.P., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MAMMUKUTTY M.P., MELEPEDIAKKAL HOUSE, EDAYOOR NORTH P.O., MALAPPURAM. 14. GINY GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.EDWIN J.P., VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O.MUNDOOR, KURALUR, THRISSUR-680541. 15. ASHA C., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.ANEESH ATHIRA, NEAR VALAVANAD TEMPLE, POTTATHAI ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688567.

¶19

O.P.(KAT)89/2018

¶20

¶21

MANI P.P., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PIOUS P., PANDANATH HOUSE, AVANAKKOL, KOTTUR, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR. 17. PARVATHI V., AGED 29, T.C.25/3478, DHAROHYAR, UPPALAM ROAD, UR-79, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 18. IQBAL K.K., KIZHAKKEKANDIYIL HOUSE, THACHAMPOYIL P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673573. 19. JAIME CHITRA K.S., AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.SACHIVOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT KARUVATHIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR. 20. LAKSHMI P.S., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.DR.BINOY S.V., VALLABHASSERY, INDIRABHAVAN, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 21. ARUN KUMAR C.S., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN C.G., CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KANICHAR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 22. PRINISHA K.K., AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, KOTTAPPADIKKAL HOUSE, PARIYASSERI ROAD, PORLODS, PALAKKAD -678613. R5 & R6 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶22

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O.P.(KAT)89/2018

¶24

¶25

OP(KAT).No. 89 of 2018 (Z)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.1371/2016 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2016 IN O.A.NO.1371/2016 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF M.A.NO.3008/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR VACATING EXT.P-2 ORDER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2016 IN MA NO.3008/2016 IN O.A.NO.1371/2016 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.10.2017 IN O.P.(KAT) NO.125/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2018 IN O.A.NO.1371/2016 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN ENGLISH.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 18.5.2015 OF THE P.S.C
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE P.S.C

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶31

¶32

O.P.(KAT) No. 89 of 2018

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2018

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶37

The fifth respondent in O.A. No. 1371 of 2016 has filed this Original Petition challenging the order 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 the post of Lecturer in Malayalam, English and Hindi pursuant to Ann. A1 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 conducted on 8.8.2014 which is evidenced herein by Ann.A2. The applicants in the O.A. who are respondents 1 to 3 herein were included in the supplementary list. They contended that, they were eligible to

¶38

be included in the main list after the second examination was

¶39

O.P.(KAT) 89/2018.

¶40

¶41

conducted, on the basis of the marks obtained in the second test.

¶42

According to the Public Service Commission, the

¶43

first test that was conducted, was for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates. In the present case, the number of applicants had exceeded 100 and therefore, a procedure of shortlisting was adopted. After the first test was conducted, the PSC had drawn up a main list containing 582 candidates and a supplementary list. The supplementary list was prepared

¶44

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 off marks in the case of such persons. However, since they were entitled to be considered for appointment to the open vacancies also, they were included in the final list that was published. It is contended that, the procedure adopted does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

¶45

According to Adv.Elvin Peter, who appears for

¶46

the petitioner, his client is a person who has been ranked in

¶47

O.P.(KAT) 89/2018.

¶48

¶49

the main list after the preliminary test was conducted. However, as a result of the procedure followed by the Public 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 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 present system would confer an unfair advantage on them in 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 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 relied upon to contend that both the tests conducted are to be taken into account for the

¶50

O.P.(KAT) 89/2018.

¶51

¶52

purpose of ranking in the present case since the initial test was not conducted as a method of shortlisting the candidates.

¶53

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

¶54

the PSC points out that the rank list in the present case was prepared on the basis of a Notification that was issued in the year 2002. The rank list was published on 21.7.2017 and appointments are being made therefrom. The petitioner in the present case is ranked as No.248 in the main list. There is absolutely no averment as to how the petitioner has been prejudiced by the procedure that has been adopted. The attempt, according to the learned counsel, is only to stall the proceedings with ulterior motives.

¶55

Heard. This Original Petition comes up before us for admission. We find that the petitioner herein has been ranked as No.248 in the rank list, Ext.P7. The procedure adopted is to prepare a supplementary list of candidates who are entitled to the benefits of reservation and to permit them also to appear in the second test. On the basis of the marks obtained in the said test, the rank list has been published

¶56

O.P.(KAT) 89/2018.

¶57

¶58

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 of the supplementary list was for the purpose of enabling the 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.

¶59

Though it is a possibility that, the persons who were ranked in the supplementary list, by lowering the cut off marks, may obtain a higher rank in the final list prepared and 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.

¶60

O.P.(KAT) 89/2018.

¶61

¶62

In fact, the petitioner has no case that any prejudice has been caused to her by virtue of the procedure adopted. In the absence of evidence of any such prejudice having been caused to the petitioner, we are not satisfied that any interference with the impugned order of the KAT is called for. We find that the KAT has considered the issues elaborately and has passed a reasoned order. We confirm the same.

¶63

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

Sd/-

K. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

Sd/ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

Greeshma N.P v. Indu P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greeshma N.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

The State of Kerala Vs Sri.v.K.Balagopala Marar

Bindu K.L. Vs Ansamma Joseph

State of Kerala Vs K.R.Mayadevi

N.L.Sajith Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Mini.S Vs the Secretary

State of Kerala Vs Ravindran N.