Dismissed

Kerala Public Service Commission, v. Dr. Abdul Rasak a.

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020OP(KAT)/148/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPSC challenged the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order directing the inclusion of 15 more candidates with locomotor disability in the shortlist. The High Court observed that the KPSC had already complied with the Tribunal's direction by issuing an amended notification. The petition was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed as infructuous as the KPSC had already amended the shortlist in compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Kerala Public Service Commission, Vs Dr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

OP(KAT).No.148 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 76/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5:

¶10

1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, KERALA.

¶11

2 SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, KERALA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶13

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3:

¶14

1 DR. ABDUL RASAK A., S/O.MOOSA, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALAKKAL HOUSE, NADAPURAM.P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673504, MOBILE-9447639659.

¶15

2 DR.AJI ANTONY, D/O.ANTONY.C.K., AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOORACKAL HOUSE, NALUKETTU.P.O., KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680308, KERALA.

¶16

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

3 DR.APARNA NATH.K., D/O.PREM NATH.K., AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329, KERALA.

¶19

4 DR.DAYA.C., D/O.C.MOHANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT USHAS, ERUVATTY.P.O., KADIRUR VIA, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670642, KERALA.

¶20

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, KERALA.

¶21

6 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AYUSH (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, KERALA.

¶22

7 DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE KERALA, AROGYA BHAVAN, P.B.NO.182, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, KERALA.

¶23

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI. P.N .SANTHOSH-SR.G.P FOR R5 TO R7

¶24

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2020, THE COURT ON 06-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

-:3:-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2020

¶29

Shaffique, J.

¶30

The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) and its Secretary have preferred this Original Petition aggrieved by order dated 12/2/2020 in OA(EKM) No.76/2020 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

¶31

The respondents herein are the original applicants. They approached the Tribunal inter alia seeking for a direction to refix the number of candidates included in the supplementary list in respect of candidates suffering from locomotor disability along with Annexure A3 shortlist and for other consequential reliefs.

¶32

The short facts of the case would disclose that the applicants had applied to the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda)/Assistant Insurance Medical Officer (Ayurveda) pursuant to a notification issued by the KPSC on 14/12/2017. The applicants specifically applied for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda). None of them were included in the main list of

¶33

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

general candidates or in the supplementary list in the short list of differently abled candidates. It is the contention of the applicants that, in the shortlist, only 6 persons were included under the locomotor disability. They submitted a representation to the Secretary of KPSC requesting to include sufficient candidates in the select list. According to them, over a period of time, several posts intended for differently abled persons have not been filled up. Since their representation was not considered, they approached the Tribunal by filing OA(EKM) No.1501/2019 and the Tribunal by its order dated 30/8/2019 directed the Secretary of KPSC to consider the same. After considering the said representation, Annexure A3 shortlist was modified by adding 5 more candidates in terms of Annexure A13 dated 6/1/2020. The contention urged by the applicants was that only 13 vacancies were set apart for differently abled persons out of which 2 were appointed under the general quota and 1 under Scheduled Caste quota. Therefore, only 10 persons are available in the list. Applicants also contended that there were 29 backlog vacancies from 1996 to 2018 and therefore the number of candidates under the locomotor disability in the supplementary list has to be

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

-:5:-

enhanced.

KPSC in the objection filed before the Tribunal contended that in order to specify the probable number of appointments, KPSC had taken into consideration the number of candidates advised from the previous ranked list which existed for a period of three years and it was found to be 163 and therefore the probable number of appointments for a period of 1 year is 59. Therefore the Commission decided to include 200 candidates who had secured top marks in the OMR test in the main list of the short list which is higher than 3 times the number of probable appointments. Thus 3% of 200 was allocated to differently abled low vision and locomotor disabled categories and they were included in a short list. However, as per order in OA(EKM) No.1501/2019, since the selection was to the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) and only locomotor disabled candidates are entitled to participate, 5 more candidates were included. Therefore, the total number of shortlisted candidates coming under the 3% differently abled category would come to 17. It is further submitted that as per Government Order dated 19/7/2008, Government had fixed Sl.Nos.33, 66 and 99 in a cycle

¶40

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶41

-:6:-

¶42

of hundred vacancies for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the ratio 1:1:1. By yet another Government Order dated 6/5/2017, the cycle of hundred vacancies had been changed as Sl.Nos.1, 34 and 67. For filling up backlog vacancies from 1996, the Government had decided to give 3% of the cadre strength for differently abled persons w.e.f. 7/2/1996 only on 6/5/2017 as per Government Order dated 6/5/2017 for which a separate notification has to be issued. It is pointed out that the ranked list was published for the aforesaid post pursuant to notification dated 19/11/2014. Though 3% vacancies were reserved for differently abled persons, there were no qualified persons. Accordingly, the 6 vacancies were filled up by general candidates from the ranked list published on 19/11/2014. Reference is made to S.36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It is further contended that 6 vacancies as seen from Annexure A5(a) includes 3 backlog vacancies set apart in respect of special recruitment as per Annexure A5(c). In respect of 5 vacancies mentioned in Annexure A5(d), those occurred against

¶43

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶44

-:7:-

¶45

5 differently abled persons turn which had arisen during the ranklist dated 19/11/2014. As far as backlog vacancies are concerned, it is pointed out that it is for the Government to inform KPSC about the backlog vacancies and if any such report is issued, necessary steps will be taken to fill up those vacancies by issuing separate notification.

¶46

The Tribunal having considered the respective contentions arrived at a conclusion that the applicants have demonstrated the existence of backlog vacancies during the previous recruitments [Annexures A5(a), (c) and (d)]. It was further held that when a definite data is available as far as differently abled candidates are concerned, 3 times the number of those candidates can be included and having observed about the nature of enactment which is promulgated as a welfare measure, direction had been issued to the appellants to include 15 more candidates from locomotor disabilities in the shortlist to enable them to participate in the interview.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents however would submit that the Tribunal had only issued a direction to issue a revised addendum notification by including 15

¶48

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶49

-:8:-

¶50

more candidates from locomotor disability category in the short list, to enable them to participate in the interview. A further direction had been issued to take steps to fill up the backlog vacancies from 1996. The said direction according to the learned counsel for respondents is justifiable in so far as the facts and circumstances involved in the case are concerned. It is pointed out that for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda), originally 6 candidates under locomotor category were included which was later modified by adding 5 more candidates as per Annexure 13 produced before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that there were 13 unfilled turns of locomotor disability candidates earlier and therefore, PSC should call for interview at least twice or thrice the number of the said vacancies. That apart, it is pointed out that 13 vacancies under the aforesaid stream remained unfilled out of which 8 were passed over to general candidates. Learned counsel submits that S.36 cannot be interpreted in a manner to deny the rights of disabled persons. It is therefore the contention of the respondents that the 13 vacancies are not backlog vacancies but unfilled turns which have already undergone rostering. Learned counsel also placed

¶51

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶52

-:9:-

¶53

reliance on a few judgments in order to sustain the plea that the Tribunal was justified in issuing the impugned order.

¶54

The learned counsel for KPSC placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB)]. In the above case, Full Bench was considering a question whether KPSC can prescribe cut off marks to shortlist the candidates called for interview. While considering the said question, the Full Bench having held that PSC has no authority to lay down the criteria for selection unless it is empowered by rules or prescribed in the notification inviting applications, further held that PSC can notify vacancies and publish a fresh rank list even during the pendency of the rank list. The counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment in order to emphasise the point that the Public Service Commission has the power to shortlist the candidates to be called for interview based on the marks secured by them in the written examination which precedes the interview. But the shortlisting cannot be on the basis of any cut off mark fixed by the PSC unless governed by Rules or prescribed in the notification inviting applications for the post. Paragraph 34 is

¶55

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶56

-:10:-

¶57

relevant which reads as under:-

¶58

“34. The principle that emerges from the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court referred to above is that the Public Service Commission does not have the authority to lay down the criteria for selection unless it is specifically authorized in that regard by the rules governing the selection. However, the power of the Public Service Commission to shortlist the candidates to be called for interview based on the marks secured by them in the written examination which precedes the interview, has been recognized by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has however held that such short listing cannot be on the basis of any cut off mark fixed by the Public Service Commission, unless the rules governing the selection specifically authorize the prescription of cut off marks or it is prescribed in the notification inviting applications for the post. It has also been held that where the norms for shortlisting candidates are thus prescribed, the Public Service Commission cannot deviate from the norms. It is also well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court that in respect of posts to which the selection is by interview, a screening test can be conducted to shortlist candidates though such shortlisting cannot be done by prescribing cut off marks in the screening test, unless it is specifically authorized by the rules governing the selection and is also notified. The Apex Court has also held that Selection Committees do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorized specifically in that regard by the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and that they do not have the

¶59

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶60

-:11:-

¶61

inherent jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection, nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection. The Apex Court has also held that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in the order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled."

¶62

The counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance

¶63

on a Division Bench judgment of this Court decided on 23/5/2019 in WA No. 2268/2017 and connected cases. That was a case in which there were only 144 vacancies reported in respect of the selection. The main list contained 950 candidates and supplementary list contained 2592 candidates. At the time when the main list was not exhausted, the PSC was directed to publish an additional rank list with 555 candidates. The Division Bench

¶64

held that nothing stands in the way of the PSC to go for a fresh selection and prepare a rank list after exhaustion of the existing rank list. The petitioners who are in the supplementary list cannot as of right seek for extension of the ranked list and creep into the

¶65

main list as attempted to be done. In the light of the aforesaid observation, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

-:12:-

aside.

Yet another judgment relied upon is Abhilash K. v. State of Kerala (OP(KAT) No.213/2014:- Judgment dated 6/6/2016). This was a case in which the petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking for a direction to fill up the backlog vacancies from the ranked list which was extended up to 30/6/2016. The Tribunal held that when backlog vacancies in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were being filled up by special recruitment, the same principle would apply as far as physically handicapped persons are concerned. That apart, there was a change in the qualification prescribed for the said post during the pendency of the ranked list and therefore from the date when the qualification criteria have changed, the rank list has become non operational. The Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on an earlier judgment dated 6/1/2016 in WA No. 362/2015 held that backlog vacancies can be filled up from the current ranked list. It was held that when there was no dispute with regard to the availability of vacancies and the validity of the rank list had been extended, the Tribunal's order require to be set aside and PSC was directed to advice the

¶70

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶71

-:13:-

¶72

petitioner against one of the available vacancies to the said post.

¶73

In Government of India and Another v. Ravi

¶74

Prakash and Another [(2010) 7 SCC 626], relied upon by the counsel for respondents, the Apex Court while considering the principle laid down under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, held at paragraph 27 as under:-

¶75

“27. It is only logical that, as provided in Section 32 of the aforesaid Act, posts have to be identified for reservation for the purposes of Section 33, but such identification was meant to be simultaneously undertaken with the coming into operation of the Act, to give effect to the provisions of Section 33. The legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Such a submission strikes at the foundation of the provisions relating to the duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in every establishment.

¶76

(emphasis added)”

¶77

In Ravi Prakesh Gupta v. U.P.S.C. and others

¶78

decided by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 5429/2008 (judgment dated 25/2/2009), the Division Bench after referring to office memorandum dated 22/4/2006 held that if the vacancies

¶79

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶80

-:14:-

¶81

earmarked for differently abled cannot be filled up in the previous year, they have to be carried forward for the first recruitment year and if it is not possible to fill up such vacancies during the following recruitment year and within a further period of two years, then alone it has to be treated as lapsed. Apparently this judgment is based on DOPT's Office Memorandum No.36035/3/2004 dated 29/12/2005 as clarified in the OM dated 26/4/2006 which may not be applicable to the case on hand.

¶82

Yet another judgment relied upon is that of Delhi High Court in Babita Pathak and Others v. High Court of Delhi decided on 22/2/2013 (WP(C) No. 997/2011). This was a case in which question involved was regarding 5 vacancies for filling up differently abled persons. After placing reliance on S.36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, it was held that the word “shall” used in S.36 may not be mandatory and would be directory depending on the facts of the case. It was also held that the action of PSC for having filled up the unfilled turns by general candidates will tantamount to defeating the object and purpose

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

-:15:-

of the Act.

The Tribunal while evaluating the aforesaid case found that from Annexures A5(a), A5(c) and A5(d), it is rather clear that there are at least 13 backlog vacancies remaining unfilled from PH locomotor candidates. The total number of Medical Officers (Ayurveda) is 1306 by reckoning the recruitments from 1996. The commission has fixed the number of candidates to be included as provided in Circular 6/2016 dated 16/7/2018 after considering the number of vacancies to be reported, number of candidates advised from previous rank list and probable number of appointments from the new rank list. Three times of number of candidates will have to be included in the main list and short list. It was further observed that as far as physically disabled category is concerned, there will be only one list. Reference is made to Ravidas's case (supra), wherein it was held that the short list and ranked list should contain 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised from the previous ranked list. Further reference is made to judgment of the Apex Court in Asok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others [(1985) 4 SCC 417]. It was held that the number of candidates to be called

¶87

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶88

-:16:-

¶89

for interview in the order of marks obtained in the written test should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that when there are unfilled turns of PH candidates, going by the recruitment from 2009 onwards and it was found to be 13, three times the number of candidates can be included, especially when the present recruitment is after a period of 7 years. It is based on the aforesaid finding that direction had been issued to revise the addendum notification by including 15 more candidates from loco motor disability category in the short list.

¶90

A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents in the above original petition. It is pointed out that Government as per letter dated 27/3/2020 had requested the Kerala Public Service Commission to initiate action as per directions of the Tribunal pursuant to which an addendum notification dated 22/4/2020 has been issued which is produced as Ext.R1(b). It is pointed out that respondents 1 to 4 are included in Ext.R1(b) and therefore, their grievance is redressed. It is in the said background that the respondents had taken a contention that the OP had become infructuous. Based on

¶91

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶92

-:17:-

¶93

Ext.R1(c), it was further contended that altogether 8 vacancies available for differently abled candidates were filled up from general category. It is pointed out that in respect of rank lists dated 15/6/2009 and 18/2/2013, 6 vacancies were filled up by general candidates and another 2 vacancies which had arisen from rank list dated 18/2/2013 were also filled up from general candidates. Those 8 persons (vacancies) were filled up by candidates from the rank list dated 19/11/2014. It is submitted that two notifications dated 12/8/2011 and 30/4/2012 were issued within a span of 9 months and several candidates were common. The ranked list published in respect of notification dated 30/4/2012 was published on 18/2/2013 which had a validity up to 17/2/2016 and ranked list published with reference to the notification dated 12/8/2011 was published on 19/11/2014 with a validity up to 18/11/2017. It is therefore pointed out that the aforesaid two rank lists were running simultaneously. The first ranked list dated 15/6/2009 was extended and expired only on 15/12/2013 which resulted in overlapping of the rank list dated 18/2/2013 as well. Therefore the contention urged is that recruitment under notifications dated 12/8/2011 and 30/4/2012

¶94

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶95

-:18:-

¶96

are to be treated as a single recruitment for the purpose of S.36 of the Act.

¶97

As per the notification published on 14/12/2017, with reference to inviting applications to the aforesaid post, 3 percent of the vacancies are admittedly reserved for differently abled candidates. There is no dispute about the fact that the differently abled candidates are being appointed based on a roster and presently among the cycle of 100 vacancies, Sl.Nos.1, 34 and 67 are to be filled up from differently abled candidates. Therefore, if at all 200 vacancies are filled up from the above ranked list, only 6 vacancies are available in respect of differently abled persons. However, even earlier, by directions issued by the Tribunal, additional 5 more candidates were also included in the shortlist. It is brought to our notice that pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order, at the instance of the Government, Public Service Commission had already issued Ext.R1(b) dated 22/4/2020 modifying the shortlist dated 7/8/2019. Having already done so in compliance with the direction issued by the Tribunal, we do not think that we will be justified in interfering with the said direction at this point of time.

¶98

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶99

-:19:-

¶100

The other direction was issued by the Tribunal to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to fill up the backlog vacancies of differently abled category taking into account the total number of appointees from 1996. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for KPSC, the backlog vacancies, if any, are to be notified separately, at the instance of the Government.

¶101

Though it was argued by the learned counsel for respondents that KPSC was not justified in converting the backlog vacancies of differently abled candidates which had occurred with reference to 3 rank lists, which were almost working parallelly, we do not think that we will be justified in adjudicating the said issue as matters stand now. KPSC has a contention that after the expiry of the requisite period, due to non-availability of 6 vacancies of PH candidates, those were passed off to general candidates as evident from Annexure A5(a). If at all there is any irregularity in the said method, it is for the Government to consider whether a further opportunity should be granted to fill up such backlog vacancies and it is appropriate not to adjudicate on such issues in the present lis.

¶102

As far as the present Original petition is concerned, Public

¶103

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶104

-:20:-

¶105

Service Commission having already amended the list of differently abled candidates, and the shortlist dated 7/8/2019 stood modified, nothing further arises for consideration. Accordingly, this OP is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

-:21:-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶117

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.76 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

¶118

EXHIBIT	P1(A1)	TRUE COPY OF THE WITH DISABILITIES ISSUED BY THE MED BY THE DISTRICT M KOZHIKODE TO THE	CERTIFICATE OF PERSONS DATED 29.9.2010 ICAL BOARD CONSTITUTED EDICAL OFFICER, 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT	P1(A2)	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.541/2017) DATE THE 5TH RESPONDEN	NOTIFICATION (CATEGORY D 14.12.2017 ISSUED BY T.
EXHIBIT	P1(A3)	TRUE COPY OF THE 7.8.2019 ISSUED B CONTAINING THE RE CANDIDATES HAVING	SHORT LIST DATED Y THE 5TH RESPONDENT GISTER NUMBERS OF LOCOMOTOR DISABILITY.
EXHIBIT	P1(A4)	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 17.10.2012.	G.O.(P)NO.61/2012/SWD
EXHIBIT	P1(A5)	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26.6.2007.	G.O.(P)NO.32/2007/SWD
EXHIBIT	P1(A5(A))	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24.12.2014 268/11.	APPOINTMENT CHART IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P1 (A5(B))	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 29.12.2005 MEMORANDUM DATED	OFFICE MEMORANDUM UNDER COVER OF OFFICE 3.12.2013.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A5(C))	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18.2.2013 I NO.223/12.	APPOINTMENT CHART N RESPECT OF CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P1 (A5(D))	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 28.11.2017 268/11.	APPOINTMENT CHART IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY

¶119

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶120

-:22:-

¶121

EXHIBIT P1 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DATED 10.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A6(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY A SIMILARLY PLACED PERSON UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.12.2017 RECEIVED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P1 (A7(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A9) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.8.2019 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A10) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.8/2017/SWD DATED 6.5.2017. EXHIBIT P1 (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2019 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.1501/2019. EXHIBIT P1 (A12) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P1 (A13) TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DATED 6.1.2020 IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY NO.541/2017 RELATING TO MEDICAL OFFICER, AYURVEDA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS.

¶122

OP(KAT) No.148/2020

¶123

-:23:-

¶124

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA(EKM)76 OF 2020 DATED 12.2.2020.

¶125

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶126

EXHIBIT R1 NIL EXHIBIT R1 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. A2/322/2019/AYUSH DATED 27.03.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY. EXHIBIT R1 (B) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DATED 22.04.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER SECRETARY BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. EXHIBIT R1 (C) A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DATED 12.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION. EXHIBIT R1 (D) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.08.2011 UNDER CATEGORY NO. 268/2011. EXHIBIT R1 (E) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.04.2012 UNDER CATEGORY NO. 223/2012 (SPECIAL RECRUITMENT).

Kerala Public Service Commission, v. Dr. Abdul Rasak a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Public Service Commission, v. Dr. Abdul Rasak a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Yadhukrishnan.P

Union of India Vs Akhila Umesh

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Akhil.M.Sisupal

Rajeeva Lochanan K R Vs Sunil Barthwal

State of Kerala, Vs Bessy Mathew

Sree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College Vs Dr.Thara