Dismissed

C.M.Prakasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2019OP(KAT)/12/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's rejection of a transferred application concerning reservation in direct recruitment for in-service candidates. The court upheld the Tribunal's order, noting the petition was filed well after appointments were made.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed upholding the order of the Tribunal.

C.M.Prakasan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.12 OF 2015(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 32852/2006 DATED 25-09-2014 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 C.M.PRAKASAN OVERSEER GRADE II, PWD BUILDING SECTION NO.1, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2 V.JAYAPRAKASH OVERSEER GRADE III, PWD BUILDING SECTION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

4 P.RAMESAN FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶18

5 G.K.ANIL KUMAR FIRST GRADE OVERSEER ROADS SUB DIVISION, NEDUMKANDAM.

¶19

OP(KAT).12/15

¶20

¶21

6 T.ANUPA FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, N.H.NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.

¶22

7 BEENA JOHN FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, BRIDGES SECTION, EDATHUVA.

¶23

8 K.ASOKAN FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, ROADS SUB DIVISION, PEERUMEDU.

¶24

9 K.SATHEESH FIRST GRADE OVERSEER,ROADS SUB DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶25

10 M.P.ABDULLA FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, BRIDGES SECTION, TIRUR.

¶26

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R5-6, R9-10 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶27

OTHER PRESENT:

¶28

SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶29

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT).12/15

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

V.G.ARUN, JJ.

OP(KAT).No.12 of 2015

¶36

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2019

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶39

The original petition is against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the Transferred Application, at the instance of the applicants. The T.A was filed contending that there was no reservation applicable to the direct recruitment of candidates working in the Public Works Department. The Tribunal by Annexure K found that when the writ petition itself was considered 10 years had elapsed from the date of publication of rank list and that even the applicants came to the Tribunal only three months before the expiry of the rank list. The appointment orders were issued as early as on 13.9.2004. The writ petition itself was filed after two years and five months of the appointment order. Finding the persons who were directly recruited to the higher cadre having settled in the posts with composure, the Tribunal rejected the T.A.

¶40

We cannot accept the ground of ten years having expired from

¶41

the publication of the rank list as a reason for rejecting the prayer since the petitioners had approached this Court far earlier and the

¶42

OP(KAT).12/15

¶43

¶44

pendency of the case for so many years, is attributable to the judicial system and a litigant cannot be non-suited on that sole ground. But, we agree with the Tribunal that the writ petition filed, before the constitution of the Tribunal, after two years and five months of the appointment orders cannot be entertained.

¶45

We further notice the contention raised by both sides on the aspect of reservation. Reliance is placed by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on Rule 14 of Part II. Rule 14 has the nominal heading 'reservation of appointments'. It indicates that where Special Rules lay down the principle of reservation it shall apply to any service, class or category and where in the case of any service, class or category, there are no Special Rules, the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare that the principle of reservation of appointments apply to such service, class or category; the appointments specified as being by direct recruitment.

¶46

In the present case the appointments were to be made by direct recruitment from the candidates 'in-service' for whom 10% was set apart. In the Special Rules, Rule 7 provides for a reservation. The learned counsel for the petitioners would take us to the definition of 'direct recruitment' in Rule 2(12) of the KS & SSR, 1958 to draw a distinction in the case of the instant appointments of 'in-service' candidates. By clause (i), any person in the service of the Government

¶47

OP(KAT).12/15

¶48

¶49

of India or Government of a State is excluded from the definition is the contention. However, we notice clause (ii) which enables the recruitment of a person in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State to be deemed a direct recruitment if the candidate satisfies all the qualifications and other conditions prescribed for such recruitment to that service and is permitted to apply for such recruitment by the competent authority. Here the Special Rules specifically provide for a quota to the insiders to be appointed on direct recruitment. The Special Rules also provide for the reservation to be followed in the case of such recruitment.

¶50

In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The original petition is therefore dismissed upholding the order of the Tribunal, also on the additional ground stated by us.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

vgsx

OP(KAT).12/15

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

ANNEXURE A	TRUE COPY OF T.A KERALA ADMINISTRA THIRUVANANTHAPURA	NO. 3500/2012 BEFORE THE TIVE TRIBUNAL, M.
ANNEXURE B	TRUE COPY OF THE THE IST RESPONDEN	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY T
ANNEXURE C	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDEN	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY T.
ANNEXURE D	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 6TH, 7TH AND	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 10TH RESPONDENTS.
ANNEXURE E	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 9TH RESPONDEN	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY T.
ANNEXURE F	TRUE COY OF THE R THE PETITIONERS T FILED BY THE IST	EPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY O THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE G	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONERS T FILED BY THE 3RD	REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY O THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE H	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS	PETITION FILED BY THE
ANNEXURE I	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS.	PETITION FILED BY THE
ANNEXURE J	TRUE COPY OF 9.3.2007 IN W.P COURT.	THE INTERIM ORDER DATED .(C) 4512/07 THIS HON'BLE
ANNEXURE K	TRUE COPY OF THE T.A.NO.1304/2012 ADMINISTRATIVE TR THIRUVANANTHAPURA	ORDER DATED 25.9.2014 IN BEFORE THE KERALA IBUNAL, M.
EXHIBIT P1	EXT P1 TRUE COPY IN THE GAZETTE DA EXTRACT)	OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED TED 20-11-2001 (RELEVANT
EXHIBIT P2	EXT P2 TRUE COPY POST OF OVERSEER THE P.S.C.	OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE GR.I (CIVIL) PUBLISHED BY
EXHIBIT P3	EXT P3 TRUE COPY POST OF OVERSEER	OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE GR.II (ELECTRICAL)

¶61

OP(KAT).12/15

¶62

¶63

EXHIBIT P4	PUBLISHED BY THE P.S.C. EXT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF ASST. ENGINEER (CIVIL) PUBLISHED BY THE P.S.C.
EXHIBIT P5	EXT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-09- 2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	EXT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-04- 2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	EXT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-11- 2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	EXT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-02- 1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	EXT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-05- 1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	EXT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-08- 2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	EXT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-10- 2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	EXT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08-10-2007 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P13	EXT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONR UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14	EXT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13-12-2010 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15	EXT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF FIRST GRADE DRAFTSMAN/OVERSEER PUBLISHED BY THE PSC.
RESPONDENT'S/S E	XHIBITS:
EXT.R-9(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATD 15.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE PSC
EXT.R-9(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.R-9(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.09.1985

C.M.Prakasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Prakasan 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

Ramya Ravindran P., Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

State of Kerala Vs K.K. Soman

V.Gopalakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Sanju.L. Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar Vs Principal Accountant General (General & Social Sector Audit)

The Director General Vs T.H.Subramanyam