A public interest challenge to the compassionate appointment scheme and creation of supernumerary posts was dismissed as not maintainable in a service matter. The court left aggrieved persons free to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 26506 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
NEERAJ NARAYAN
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.M.NARAYANAN(LATE)RESIDING AT NARAYANEEYAM,THURAVOOR.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA-688 532. BY ADV SRI.S.SABARINADH
RESPONDENT/S:
PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (ADVICE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADVS.
PRAMOD P.G, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SANJAY THAMPI
R1,R2, R4 & R5 BY SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR GP R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 2 :
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2021.
JUDGMENT
S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.
The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
The petitioner, an advocate, has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation challenging Ext. P1. According to the petitioner, State Government has diluted the prescriptions of Ext. P1 scheme and is now granting appointment under the guise of compassion to persons/families with an income of more than Rs.66000/- per month, excluding the family pension and terminal benefits.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 3 :
created more than 13,962 supernumerary posts, in violation of clauses (i)to (viii) in Rule 69(c) in Chapter IV of the Kerala Financial Code (Volume-I) during 2012-2017 and that it caused an approximate loss of Rs. 500 Crores.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 4 :
No. 1/2018/P&ARD dated 07.01.2018, G.O.(Ms) No. 13/2020/P&ARD dated 16.11.2020 and a copy of the judgment in OP(KAT) No. 25 of 2019. He further submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM) No. 265/2019 and connected cases has been challenged in O.P. (KAT) No. 252 of 2021 before this Court along with other connected cases and that the same is pending consideration.
P1 as violative of Articles 14,16, 309 and 320 of the Constitution of India and is in contravention to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
"(i) When maintainability of the public interest writ petition, in service matters, was raised by us, Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on, a Hon'ble Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Jaskaran Singh Brar v. State Of Punjab And Ors. , [2005 (3) SLJ 354 P & H]. At that juncture,
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 5 :
we pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that judgments of other High Courts, do not have any binding effect, more particularly, when the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is to the effect that, a public interest writ petition is not maintainable in service matters, he sought for an adjournment.
(ii) Way back in 1998, in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue, as to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal. After considering the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“18....... Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 6 :
application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
"....A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.”
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 7 :
services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well-defined in the Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power."
We agree with the above reasoning.
(iii) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B ., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
“5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), “public interest” is defined thus:
“Public interest.—(1) A matter of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected’.”
“Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.”
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 8 :
[(1992) 4 SCC 305] the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as follows:
“The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
“Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.”
“While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.”
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 9 :
“It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.”
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 10 :
detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 11 :
court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
“Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.”
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 12 :
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 13 :
and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with a heavy hand and dire consequences.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 14 :
came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”
(iv) In Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(v) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced:
“13. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 15 :
be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. Since in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed there is no scope for taking action for contempt, particularly, when the petition is itself not maintainable. In any event, by order dated 15.4.2002 this Court had stayed operation of the High Court's order.”
(vi) In Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and another , reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 522, the abovesaid Council, filed a public interest writ petition, challenging a notification, issued by the 2nd respondent therein, by which, applications were invited, from degree holders, with degree in education, and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondent therein, to appoint only those teachers, who were trained in teaching primary sections, for handling classes from 1st to 7th standards, to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. Following the decision in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in 2005 J.T. [5] SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court held as under:
“This is a public interest litigation in respect of a service matter. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no public interest litigation lies in service matters, the last decision being Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , (2005 J.T. [5] SC 389). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.”
(vii) In N. Veerasamy v. Union of India , reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 564, while considering a public interest litigation filed by a treasurer of a political party, praying to take action again Mrs.Lakshmi Pranesh, IAS, the fifth respondent therein, under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for allegedly making allegations
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 16 :
against a leader of a political party, following the above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
"It is settled law that no writ in the form of public interest litigation will lie under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the public interest litigation. The extraordinary powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution in matters of this kind is required to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary cases." "The service matters are essentially between the employer and the employee and it would be for the State to take action under the Service Rules and there is no question of any public interest involved in such matters."
"The petition is not only not maintainable either in law of facts but also would amount to abuse of the process of Court."
(viii) In B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and others , reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731, at paragraph 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in service matters only the non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure.
(ix) In Neetu v. State of Punjab , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 17 :
of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases.”
“Referring to the decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in (2004 (3) SCC 349), cited supra, the Apex Court held that PIL in service matters has been held as not maintainable.”
(x) In Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 290, the Hon'ble Apex Court restated that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(xi) In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and other s, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655, claiming himself as Vidyut Shramik Leader, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, challenging the appointment of Mr.Hari Bansh Lal, who was appointed, as the Chairman of Jharkand State Electricity Board. The High Court declared that his appointment was not only arbitrary, but also, contemptuous, and ultimately, quashed his appointment, which gave rise to an appeal, before the Apex Court. Addressing the issue, as to whether a public interest writ petition, is maintainable in service matters, following the earlier decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349] and other decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“PIL in service matters:
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 18 :
The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Others , (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others , (2005) 1 SCC 590 and Gurpal Singh v.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 19 :
State of Punjab and Other s, (2005) 5 SCC 136.
(xii) In Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other s, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707, appointments were challenged in PIL, on the grounds of contravention of rules, regarding reservation of ex-servicemen. The High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered cancellation of appointments, and dismissed the review petitions also. While considering the issue, as to whether the matter ought to have been taken, as service dispute and not PIL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a catena of decisions, at paragraphs 14 to 19 has held as follows:-
“14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) 1520/2001 and WP(C) 63/2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention.
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 20 :
to be entertained by the (Administrative) Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated" (para 18). Same reasoning applies here as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.
(xiii) In Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony Elangovan , reported in (2010) 4 CTC 8, following Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in JT 2005 (5) SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(xiv) In Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 21 :
Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and others , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 464, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction to set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent therein, as Principal, was sought for, as the 3rd respondent was junior, to them, and did not have the requisite qualification. Reiterating the legal position that PIL is not maintainable in service matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to entertain the challenge to the notices issued to Ramakrishna Mission to reconstitute the committees.
(xv) Though the present writ petition has been filed by a practicing advocate, we wish to incorporate the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while entertaining Public Interest Writ Petition, in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 465]. At paragraphs 14 and 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as follows:
“14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 22 :
court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. , AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. , (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. , (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. , (2011) 7 SCC 69).
(xvi) In Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 3616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that PIL in service matters is not maintainable.”
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 23 :
petitioner, submitted that even though the Tribunal has upheld the power of the Government in issuing Ext. P1 dated 24.05.1999, subsequently, in O.A.(EKM) No. 1714/2021, Government have contended that there is power to create supernumerary posts more than 5% as provided in the Rules. Here again, the issued is stated to be pending before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and therefore, it would not be desirable to deal with the said issue in this Public Interest writ petition.
For the above reasons, we are of the view that instant writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the aggrieved persons to pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum.
sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 24 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26506/2018
| PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 |
A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.12/99/P&ARD DATED 24.05.1999 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.24/99/P&ARD DATED 18.11.1999 |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.37/2002/P&ARD DATED 15.07.2002 |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O(P)NO.14/2010/P&ARD DATED 12.04.2010 |
| EXHIBIT P4(a) | TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4(G.O. (P)NO.14/2010/P&ARD DATED 12.04.2010 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O(P)NO.23/2015 P&ARD DATED 25.07.2015 |
| EXHIBIT P5(a) | TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5(G.O.(P)NO.23/2015 P&ARD DATED 25.07.2015 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.7/2018 P&ARD DATED 28.04.2018 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RULES 67-71 IN CHAPTER IV OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CODE(VOLUME-1) |
| EXHIBIT P8 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS DATED 25.05.2012 |
| EXHIBIT P9 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.174/12/GAD DATED 06.07.2012 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION |
| EXHIBIT P10 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS DATED 30.09.2015 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION |
| EXHIBIT P11 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CHART UPLOADED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR 2009-10. |
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ANNEXURE IV GUIDELINES ISSUED AS PER G.O.(MS) NO. 192/85/RD DATED 23.03.1985 FOR ISSUANCE OF INCOME CERTIFICATE. |
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 229/2014/R.D DATED 02.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 22/2014/P&ARD DATED 21.07.2014 |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(MS.) NO. 26/2015/P&ARD DATED 04.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. |
W.P.(C) No. 26506/2011
: 25 :
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF INFORMATION NO.E.B3(A) NO.13851/15 DATED 06.08.2015 RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ISSUED BY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UNDER THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILED COMMON LIST INDICATIVE OF THE NUMBER, PERCENTAGE AND COMPOSITION OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTEES AND PSC HANDS IN THE MINISTERIAL CADRE OF THE FOREST DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF KERALA (WHICH IS A DOCUMENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A3 IN O.A.1714 OF 2020 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILES OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL BENCH) Exhibit P18 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.9/2021/TRANS DATED 25.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (C) OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(a): THE ADVICE TENDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE MATTER DATED 27.01.2014.
EXT.R2(b): THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT DATED 24.04.2014. EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Ms.) No. 22/2014/P& ARD DATED 21.07.2014. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.26/2015/P&ARD DATED 04.09.2015.
/True Copy/
PS to Judge.
rv
1 issue framed by the court
Was a public interest litigation challenging the compassionate appointment scheme and creation of supernumerary posts maintainable in a service matter?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and othersRelied on¶53
(1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.BRelied on¶66
(2004) 3 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶106
(2004) 3 SCC 363 · Who else cites this
Gurpal Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶107
(2005) 5 SCC 136 · Who else cites this
Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and anotherRelied on¶112
2005 (3) L.W. 522
N. Veerasamy v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶114
(2005) 2 MLJ 564
Neetu v. State of PunjabRelied on¶121
(2007) 10 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and othersRelied on¶128
(2010) 9 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and othersRelied on¶139
(2010) 10 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony ElangovanRelied on¶149
(2010) 4 CTC 8
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶154
[(2013) 4 SCC 465] · Who else cites this
Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors.Relied on¶160
AIR 2019 SC 3616 · Who else cites this
NEERAJ NARAYAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE SECRETARY, PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (ADVICE) DEPARTMENT
THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT
THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
