Allowed

Kerala Public Service Commission, v. Rani M.H.

Kerala HC3 Nov 2020OP(KAT)/338/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recruitment from an extended Junior Public Health Nurse ranked list turned on when advice became effective. The Court held that approval of advice, not dispatch of communications, determined expiry of the list. It allowed the petitions and set aside the Tribunal's direction to advise seven additional candidates.

What did the court decide?

The common Tribunal order in OA (EKM) Nos.1902/2019 and 2006/2019 directing KPSC to advise seven additional candidates was set aside.

Kerala Public Service Commission, Vs Rani M.H. — Service and Employment | 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 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

OP(KAT).No.317 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 1902/2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARAGOD-671121, KERALA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶14

1 JISHA I. AGED 39 YEARS W/O. JANEESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT NIVARTHIL, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688539.

¶15

2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

¶16

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

3 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPLEX, CHAMMATTAMVAYAL, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-671315.

¶19

SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH- SR. G.P. R1 BY SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶20

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).338/2020, THE COURT ON 03-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶28

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶29

OP(KAT).No.338 OF 2020

¶30

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 2006/2019 DATED 26-06-2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶31

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:

¶32

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

¶33

2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KASARAGOD-671121, KERALA.

¶34

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

¶35

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶36

1 RANI M.H., W/O. SANTHOSH, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOOPPAN PARAMBIL, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688539.

¶37

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶38

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035, KERALA.

¶41

4 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-671315, KERALA.

¶42

R1 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY R1 BY ADV. KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶43

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).317/2020, THE COURT ON 03-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶45

-:5:-

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2020

¶48

Shaffique, J.

¶49

The Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'KPSC') and its officers had preferred this Original petition challenging common order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA (EKM) Nos. 1902/2019 and 2006/2019. By the impugned order, the KPSC was directed to advise 7 candidates from Annexure A1 ranked list within a period of two months.

¶50

The short facts of the case are as under:-

¶51

The applicants before the Tribunal are persons who were included in Annexure A1 ranked list published by KPSC on 6/6/2016. The post to which they have sought for selection was Junior Public Health Nurse, Grade II. The applicant in OA (EKM) No.1902/2019 contended that there are 21 vacancies as mentioned in Annexures 2 to 6 and therefore they sought for a direction to the 2^nd respondent, the District Medical Officer (Health), to report those vacancies to the KPSC and to direct KPSC to issue

¶52

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶53

-:6:-

¶54

necessary advice from the said ranked list. The applicant in OA No.2006/2019 contended that only 7 vacancies were reported. It was contended that as per an interim order dated 8/11/2019 in OA (EKM) No.1902/2019, the Tribunal had directed the District Medical Officer (Health) to report 21 substantive vacancies. It is pointed out that 17 vacancies were reported to the KPSC. The KPSC had issued advice memo against 7 vacancies which were reported first. According to them, if advice memos are issued to 7 vacancies alone without issuing advice memos to the remaining candidates, Annexure A1 ranked list will expire on such advice. Therefore, the remaining candidates will not be advised and appointed to the said category.

¶55

KPSC took up a contention that the ranked list came into force on 6/6/2016 and three year period was over on 5/6/2019. As per the 4^th proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'KPSC Rules'), the validity of the ranked list stands extended for a period of one year or until at least one candidate is advised from the ranked list, whichever is earlier. It is pointed out that 7 vacancies were reported on 17/9/2019 by the appointing

¶56

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶57

-:7:-

¶58

authority and the rotation was approved on 19/10/2019. The advice against 7 vacancies were approved on 19/10/2019 and the ranked list stood cancelled with effect from the said date ie 19/10/2019. It is pointed out that 3 more vacancies were reported on 28/10/2019. Since the same was reported after the expiry of the ranked list, advice could not be made by the KPSC.

¶59

The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions of the parties observed that though a decision was taken by the KPSC to advise 7 candidates on 19/10/2019, the advice letter to the Director of Health Services and the advice memos to the candidates were actually issued on 18/11/2019. It was found further from the materials placed on record that the advice letters and advice memo to the 7 candidates were issued only on 18/11/2019 though a decision was taken by the KPSC on 19/10/2019. It was therefore observed that out of the 21 vacancies reported to KPSC, 14 had arisen during the currency of the ranked list whereas the remaining 7 have arisen on 1/3/2020 after expiry of the ranked list. Having observed so, it was held that substantive vacancies were reported to KPSC during the currency of the ranked list i.e., before 18/11/2019 and

¶60

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶61

-:8:-

¶62

accordingly, direction had been issued to the KPSC to advise 7 more candidates in accordance with the Rules.

¶63

While impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel appearing for KPSC, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan argued that the Tribunal did not consider the 4^th proviso to Rule 13 of the KPSC Rules. Ranked list under normal circumstance is valid for a period of one year. Rule 13 reads as under:-

¶64

“13. The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier:

¶65

Provided that the above rule shall not apply in respect of ranked lists of candidates for admission to Training Courses that leads to automatic appointment to Services or posts and that in such cases the Ranked Lists shall cease to be in force after one year from the date of finalisation of the Ranked Lists or after one month from the date of commencement of the course in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists whichever is later.

¶66

Provided further that the provisions of the proviso above mentioned shall not be applicable for the selection for admission to the Forest Rangers Course and also for admission to the Diploma Course in Forestry for which selections have to be made annually in accordance with

¶67

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶68

-:9:-

¶69

the instructions of the Government of India issued from time to time. For these selections, the Ranked Lists will be in force only for a period of three months from the date of finalisation of the Ranked Lists or one month from the date of commencement of the course whichever is later.

¶70

Provided further that the Commission may take steps for the preparation of a new ranked list wherever necessary even before the expiry of the period of one year of the ranked list, by inviting applications but that the ranked list prepared in pursuance of the said notification shall be brought into force only after the expiry of the period of one year of the existing ranked list.

¶71

Provided further that a ranked list from which no candidate is advised during the period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force shall be kept in force till the expiry of three years from the said date and in a case where no candidate is advised from the ranked list till the expiry of the said period of three years, the duration of the ranked list shall be extended by the Commission for a further period of one year or till at least one candidate is advised from the list whichever is earlier.

¶72

Provided further that if the Commission is satisfied of the existence of a general ban not exceeding one and a half year in the aggregate duration declared by the Government on the reporting of vacancies, to the Public Service Commission, they shall have the power to keep alive the ranked lists which are normally due to expire during the period of the above said ban or within 7 days of the cessation of the ban, for a further period of 30 days from the date of cessation of ban. If the Commission is satisfied of the ban and its consequences they shall issue a

¶73

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶74

-:10:-

¶75

notification keeping alive the ranked list in the above manner and shall advise candidates to the vacancies which actually arose during the normal period of validity of the ranked list and certified to be as such by the Appointing Authorities reporting vacancies to the Commission.”

¶76

As per the 4^th proviso, if no candidate is advised during

¶77

the period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force, the ranked list shall be kept in force till the expiry of three years from the said date and in a case where no candidate is advised from the ranked list till the expiry of the said period of three years, the duration of the ranked list shall be extended by the Commission for a further period of one year or till at least one candidate is advised from the list, whichever is earlier. Petitioner therefore argues that the first set of 7 candidates were advised by the KPSC on 19/10/2019 on account of which the 4^th proviso applies to the fact situation in which event the ranked list got expired on 19/10/2019. Reporting of vacancy after 19/10/2019 though as per directions issued by the Tribunal was after the expiry of the ranked list and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a view that the ranked list continues to be in force until the advice is dispatched to the respective candidates.

¶78

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶79

-:11:-

¶80

Learned counsel for KPSC also placed reliance on a Manual published by the KPSC which indicates the procedure being followed by the KPSC in the matter relating to the date of advice. He refers to paragraphs 439, 442 and 443 which reads as under:-

¶81

“439.The proposals for the advice of candidates as per the rules should be submitted to the Joint Secretary and should be got approved by the Member concerned and if the Member is not in station the advice of candidates shall be approved by the Secretary and the file should be resubmitted to the member for ratification after the advice is sent at any date not later than one month from the date of advice. In respect of the Regional Office/the District Office, the Regional Officer/District Officer shall approve the advice of candidates and the file will be submitted to the Member/the Chairman for ratification when they visit the Regional Office/District Office. The date of advice to be noted in the advice letter should be date on which the advice of candidates is approved.”

¶82

“442. Advice letter should be carefully prepared. It should be ensured that the date noted in the advice letter agrees to the date of approval of the rotation, even if it can be typed only at a later date. There should be only one advice letter bearing the same number and date for the same post to the same Appointing Authority even though requisitions might have been received on different dates or same date. Otherwise the Appointing Authority may find it impossible to fix the inter-se seniority of the

¶83

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶84

-:12:-

¶85

candidates advised.

¶86

443. The Advice letter along with the scanned copy of Identification

¶87

Certificates shall be forwarded to the Appointing Authorities by Registered Post. The advice letter shall be in the form prescribed in Appendix - 40 and shall be signed by an officer not below the rank of the Under Secretary. The date of advice turn in which advised, number and date of advice letter etc. shall recorded in the Identification Certificate and shall be attested by the Under Secretary. The Original Identification Certificate and a copy of the advice letter shall be forwarded to the section entrusted with regularisation of appointments (Circular 5/2011). In the case of posts for which One Time Verification Certificate is issued, copy of the Certificate shall be forwarded along with the Advice letter (Circular 28/14, See paragraph 505 also).”

¶88

It is also pointed out that the date of advice of a candidate has a

¶89

relevance in the matter relating to seniority as well and therefore, the date of advice is very crucial as far as KPSC is concerned. Once KPSC had approved the candidate for advice and the office is directed to issue necessary communication, the date of advice to be noted in the advice letter has to be the date on which advice of candidate is approved. Once KPSC has approved advice of the candidate, the said date alone is taken as the relevant date for all practical purposes including that of seniority. Therefore,

¶90

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶91

-:13:-

¶92

while extending the period of the ranked list, when the Rule clearly indicates that the ranked list shall be extended till at least one candidate is advised from the list only means that one candidate is advised by KPSC from the list and not when the letter of advice is dispatched from the KPSC office.

¶93

Learned counsel Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent in OP(KAT) No.338/2020 would contend that a literal interpretation of the 4^th proviso to Rule 13 of KPSC Rules, would only indicate that the ranked list will expire when the advice is dispatched to the concerned candidate and not when the KPSC had approved the advice by their internal mechanism. According to him, an interpretation in consonance with the scheme of Rule 13 has to be adopted which favours the candidates and not otherwise. He also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others [(2007) 2 SCC 230]. Reference was made to paragraphs 40, 43, 48, 57 and 58 which reads as under:-

¶94

“40. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and the foremost principle of interpretation of a statute in every

¶95

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶96

-:14:-

¶97

system of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. The other rules of interpretation e.g. the mischief rule, purposive interpretation, etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match ABv. Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2004) 11 SCC 641 : AIR 2004 SC 4219] . As held in Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [(2004) 9 SCC 686] the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court cannot correct or make up the deficiency, especially when a literal reading thereof produces an intelligible result, vide Delhi Financial Corpn. v. Rajiv Anand [(2004) 11 SCC 625] . Where the legislative intent is clear from the language, the court should give effect to it, vide Govt. of A.P. v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Assn. [(2004) 6 SCC 210] and the court should not seek to amend the law in the garb of interpretation.”

¶98

“43. In other words, once we depart from the literal rule, then any number of interpretations can be put to a statutory provision, each judge having a free play to put his own interpretation as he likes. This would be destructive of judicial discipline, and also the basic principle in a democracy that it is not for the Judge to legislate as that is the task of the elected representatives of the people. Even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to

¶99

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶100

-:15:-

¶101

be followed (see G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretations, 9th Edn., pp. 45-49). Hence departure from the literal rule should only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should be judicial restraint in this connection.”

¶102

“48. No doubt in some exceptional cases departure can be made from the literal rule of the interpretation e.g. by adopting a purposive construction, Heydon's mischief rule, etc. but that should only be done in very exceptional cases. Ordinarily, it is not proper for the court to depart from the literal rule as that would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible vide J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 5 SCC 134 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 605 : AIR 2003 SC 1405] , State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh [(2005) 10 SCC 437 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1570 : JT (2004) 10 SC 349] . It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the court vide State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh [(2005) 10 SCC 437 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1570 : JT (2004) 10 SC 349] . In Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi [(2003) 1 SCC 730] this Court observed (SCC p. 733, para 5) that the court cannot legislate under the garb of interpretation. Hence there should be judicial restraint in this connection, and the temptation to do judicial legislation should be eschewed by the courts. In fact, judicial legislation is an oxymoron.”

¶103

“57. The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. 58. We may mention here that the literal rule of interpretation is not only followed by judges and lawyers, but it is also followed by the layman in his ordinary life. To give an illustration, if a person says “this is a pencil”, then he means

¶104

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶105

-:16:-

¶106

that it is a pencil; and it is not that when he says that the object is a pencil, he means that it is a horse, donkey or an elephant. In other words, the literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. If we do not follow the literal rule of interpretation, social life will become impossible, and we will not understand each other. If we say that a certain object is a book, then we mean it is a book. If we say it is a book, but we mean it is a horse, table or an elephant, then we will not be able to communicate with each other. Life will become impossible. Hence, the meaning of the literal rule of interpretation is simply that we mean what we say and we say what we mean”.

¶107

Reference is also made to a judgment of this Court in OP(KAT) No.293/2015 decided on 19/10/2015 [ Manju and

¶108

Another v. State of Kerala ]. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the 4^th proviso has to be understood as merely carving out an exception to the general rule that the normal period of validity of a rank list would be three years and the 4^th proviso confers power on the KPSC to extend the period suitably. He pointed out that unless the advice prepared by the KPSC is dispatched to the candidate, the ranked list remains in force and therefore, there is justification on the part of the Tribunal in directing the KPSC to advise candidates for at least 3

¶109

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶110

-:17:-

¶111

vacancies. Learned counsel fairly points out that as far as the other 4 vacancies are concerned, those were only anticipated vacancies and not substantive vacancies and to that extent the Tribunal may not be justified in issuing such a direction.

¶112

Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in OP(KAT) No.317/2020 while supporting the arguments of the counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in OP(KAT) No.338/2020 submits that despite the existence of vacancies, the same were not reported during the currency of the ranked list. It is submitted that a candidate will know about the advice only when an intimation is received to collect the advice as evident from Annexure A8 produced along with rejoinder filed by the applicant. It is submitted that an email message was received to collect the advice memo in person. Such a message was available in the website of the Commission. Learned counsel also submitted that the date of advice as mentioned in the communications that are sent to the respective candidates may not have any relevance as the 4^th proviso to Rule 13 of the KPSC Rules clearly contemplates an intimation being sent to the candidate for the purpose of treating it as the first advice after

¶113

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶114

-:18:-

¶115

the period of expiry of ranked list.

¶116

There is no dispute about the factual situation arising in the case. Sri.O.D.Sivadas has taken up a contention that all the 7 candidates are to be advised as directed by the Tribunal and not 3. The main question to be considered is whether the ranked list had expired or not. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that if the ranked list had expired on 19/10/2019, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. However, as contended by the applicants, if the ranked list expires only on 18/11/2019, the date on which advice memos were dispatched to the concerned candidates, at least 3 candidates could be advised from the list. As far as the other 4 candidates are concerned, we shall deal with it later. There is no dispute about the legal proposition as held by the Apex Court in Raghunath Rai Bareja (supra). When a statute requires an interpretation, the first and foremost principle is to adopt the literal rule of interpretation. Here, the question relates to interpretation to 4^th proviso to Rule 13 of the KPSC Rules. When the Rule specifies that the ranked list shall remain in force until “at least one candidate is advised from the list”, necessarily the meaning is that KPSC has to advice one candidate

¶117

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶118

-:19:-

¶119

from the ranked list. When does KPSC advice the said candidate from the ranked list is the only question. According to KPSC, it is on 19/10/2019, which is evident from Annexure R3(f), filed along with the additional reply statement filed by KPSC in OA (EKM) No.1902/2019. This is the official communication issued by the District Officer, KPSC, District Office, Kasaragode to the District Medical Officer (Health) Kasaragode. It is dated 19/10/2019 by which advice for appointment was made in respect of 6 candidates. There is no dispute about the fact that the communication has been dispatched only on 18/11/2019. Similarly Annexure R3(g) is also a communication dated 19/10/2019 issued by the District Officer, KPSC to all the 6 candidates informing the candidates that they have been advised for recruitment as Junior Public Health Nurse Grade II on a particular pay scale. Therefore, the date of advice is definitely the date on which the District Officer had intimated the District Medical Officer (Health), who is the appointing authority and to the respective candidates. But it is dispatched only on 18/11/2019. Therefore the date of advice for all practical purposes as far as KPSC is concerned is 19/10/2019 and not on

¶120

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶121

-:20:-

¶122

the day when the communications were dispatched. Paragraph 439 of the Manual of Law relating to KPSC also indicates the procedure that is normally adopted, though the Manual may not have any statutory force. It delineates the manner in which the candidates are being advised as per Rules. It is clearly indicated at paragraph 439 that “date of advice to be noted in the advice letter should be the date on which the advice of candidates is approved”. Further, at paragraph 442, clear instructions have been issued to ensure that the date noted in the advice letter agrees to the date of approval of the rotation, even if it can be typed only at a later date. Therefore, for all practical purposes and even for the purpose of 4^th proviso to Rule 13 of the KPSC Rules, the date of advice should be the date specified by KPSC as the date of advice which is the date on which they have approved the issuance of the advice. It cannot be otherwise. If the interpretation as held by the Tribunal is upheld, there is every chance of several manipulations being done by delaying the dispatch by some staff of the dispatch section. We are concerned with a ranked list which had already expired after a period of three years but the rules permit the KPSC to keep it alive only for

¶123

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶124

-:21:-

¶125

a further period of one year or until a candidate is first advised,

¶126

whichever is earlier. The words “at least one candidate is advised” can only mean advice by KPSC, which is on 19/10/2019 and not when the advice is dispatched to the candidate as argued by the applicants and held by the Tribunal.

¶127

In the light of the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly the Original Petitions are allowed setting aside the order in OA (EKM) Nos.1902/2019 and 2006/2019.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶136

-:22:-

¶137

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 317/2020

¶138

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶139

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RANK LIST PUBLIHSED BY THE KPSC NO.308/2016/SSV DATED 06/06/2016.

¶140

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. FWA 4- 19888/2014 DHS DATED 13/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶141

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. ORDER NO.FWA 4-19888/2014/DHS DATED 30/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶142

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FWA 4- 76743/2019/DHS DATED 16/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶143

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FWA 4- 76743/2019/DHS DATED 20/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶144

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FWA 4- 19888/2014/DHS DATED 22/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶145

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶146

ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 04/07/2019.

¶147

ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORTING THE VACANCIES. ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 05/08/2019. ANNEXURE R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA.

¶148

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶149

-:23:-

¶150

ANNEXURE R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE 05/09/2019.	COVERING LETTER DATED
ANNEXURE R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE VACANCIES.	PROFORMA REPORTING THE
ANNEXURE R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE VACANCIES AS PER	PROFORMA REPORTING THE DATED 13/11/1992.
ANNEXURE R2(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE VACANCIES AS PER	PROFORMA REPORTING THE LETTER 28/10/19.
ANNEXURE R3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE 11975/2019 DATED	LETTER NO. A3- 05/09/2019.
ANNEXURE R3(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE 03/09/2019.	PROFORMA DATED
ANNEXURE R3(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE THE POST OF JPHN	APPOINTMENT CHART FOR GR.II.
ANNEXURE R3(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE 28/10/2019.	PROFORMA DATED
ANNEXURE R3(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE 13/11/2019.	PROFORMA DATED
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION ON 18/ ADVICE FROM THE P	MESSAGE ISSUED BY THE 11/2019 REGARDING THE SC RANK LIST.
ANNEXURE R3(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE 1/50016/2018/KPSC	LETTER NO. KGD 4- DOKGD DATED 19/10/2019.
ANNEXURE R3(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE 19/10/2019.	ADVICE MEMO DATED
ANNEXURE A9	TRUE COPY OF THE 19888/2014 DATED THE 1ST RESPONDEN	PROCEEDING NO. FWA 4- 03/03/2020 ISSUED BY T.
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE WITH ITS ANNEXURE	OA (EKM) NO.1902/2019 S.

¶151

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶152

-:24:-

¶153

EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P3 REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF R3 TO R5. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE R3 TO R5. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TO ACCEPT DOCUMENT WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.1902/2019 DATED 26/06/2020.

¶154

OP(KAT) Nos.317 & 338/2020

¶155

-:25:-

¶156

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 338/2020

¶157

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶158

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.308/2016/SSV DATED 06/06/2016.

¶159

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08/11/2019 IN OA (EKM) NO.1902/2019. ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN OS (EKM) NO.1902/2019.

¶160

ANNEXURE MA2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE PSC. ANNEXURE R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA FOR REPORTING VACANCY DATED 28/10/2019. ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORTING THE VACANCIES DATED 13/11/2019. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.2006/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MA FOR ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS-ANNEX. MA1 AND MA2.

¶161

EXHIBIT P3 REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.2006/2019 DATED 26/06/2020.

Kerala Public Service Commission, v. Rani M.H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Public Service Commission, v. Rani M.H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs G.Indirakumari

Jayakumar A.O Vs the Secretary

Rajith Raju R.V. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Sidique Mannan Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jisha I.

A.K.Salini Vs Union of India