Allowed

K.N.Radhamani v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Kerala HC28 Oct 2021WP(C)/9977/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed combined writ petitions filed by employees of primary cooperative societies challenging non-appointment despite appearing in rank lists. The court directed the Public Service Commission to advise appointments based on the rank list pending the list's expiry following the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal challenging the qualification norm. Appointments to be made within two

What did the court decide?

Ordered that the Petitioners be advised for appointment to the post of Clerk/Cashier within two months in accordance with their rank.

K.N.Radhamani Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8784 OF 2010

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 KANAKA C. PEEDIKAKKAL CHIRA, PANANGADU P. O., ERNAKULAM. 2 S. MOHAMMED FAROOK, THOTTAKKADU HOUSE, KUNNUMMA P.O, THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA. 3 ANILKUMAR P, PUTHOOR VELY, S.N.PURAM P. O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 4 RANIKUTTY KURIAKOSE, KUTTICHIRAYIL, KOKOTHAMANGALAM P. O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SRI. FAISAL - GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9977/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9977 OF 2010

¶20

PETITIONER:

¶21

K.N. RADHAMANI VIJAYAPURAM, THUMBAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶22

BY ADV SRI. P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶23

RESPONDENTS:

¶24

1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶26

(THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.)

¶27

ADDRESS OF R2 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.4406/10 DATED 24.03.2010 3 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶28

(THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ADDRESS OF R3 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.4406/10 DATED 24.03.2010.)

¶29

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶30

¶31

BY ADV SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SRI. FAISAL - GP

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).8784/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶34

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are same, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶37

The petitioners are employees of primary Cooperative Societies affiliated to the 3^rd respondent Bank (in both writ petitions). The Public Service Commission, by notification dated 25.04.2006, invited applications for

¶38

selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in 14 District Cooperative Banks in the State. The minimum educational qualification prescribed as per the said notification was Graduation with JDC.

¶39

Contending that the said prescription of qualification was contrary to the qualification of SSLC with JDC prescribed as per Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.22211 of 2006. The said writ petition was referred to a Full Bench of this Court along with other writ petitions

¶40

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶41

¶42

and the Full Bench, by judgment dated 24.10.2007, reported in Sathyadevan v . Public Service Commission [2008 (1) KLT 289 (F.B)], held that, the qualification of SSLC with JDC and three years continuous experience is sufficient to write the test under 50% quota reserved for in- service candidates, if they are oth erwise eligible. However, only the petitioners in those cases referred to the Full Bench were permitted to participate in the written test. Pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench, the petitioners participated in the written test. In the meantime, the Public Service Commission filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as SLP No.17182/08 against the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above. Pursuant to the written test, the Public Service Commission published Ext.P2 rank list (in both writ petitions), with a rider as follows:-

¶43

“Note – II:- Candidates under Part-II (Society Quota) in the Ranked List with Qualification SSLC and JDC with three years experience will be provisional subjected to the final disposal of SLP No.17182/08 filed by Kerala Public Service Commission in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.”

¶44

Though the petitioners were included in the

¶45

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶46

¶47

respective rank lists, they were not advised by the Public Service Commission for the reason that the Special Leave Petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners, therefore, preferred the captioned writ petitions for directing the Public Service Commission to advice them for appointment to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 3^rd respondent Bank in accordance with their turn in Ext.P2 rank list. This Court passed an interim order in these writ petitions, which reads as follows:-

¶48

“In the totality of the circumstances, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to keep the vacancies as such without making any advice against them, in case the turn of the petitioners arise for advice for appointment as against the aforesaid posts. The petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of this direction only in case they were parties to the Full Bench decision reported in 2008 (1) KLT 289.”

¶49

The Special Leave Petition filed by the Public Service Commission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was was dismissed by judgment dated 06.09.2021. The Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.8784/2010 has produced the copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.1802-1806/2009 along with a memo.

¶50

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶51

¶52

Since the petitioners were parties to the Full Bench decision reported in Sathyadevan 's case (supra) and are included in respective rank lists (Ext.P2) for appointment as Clerk/Cashier and the appeal preferred by the Public Service Commission having been dismissed, they are entitled to be advised for appointment to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 3^rd respondent Bank in accordance with their turn in Ext.P2 rank list, during the currency of the rank list. It is ordered accordingly. Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken by the Commission at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from today.

¶53

The writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶56

SPR

¶57

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8784/2010

¶60

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.02.2010 ISSUED IN SLP NO.1615-1619/09. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST PUBLISHED THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.09.2012 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶62

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

¶63

WP(C).Nos.8784 & 9977 OF 2010

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9977/2010

¶66

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶67

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.02.2010 ISSUED IN SLP NO.1615-1619/09. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶68

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

K.N.Radhamani v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Radhamani v. the Kerala Public Service Commission

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

Premjijthlal. T.P. Vs the Secretary

Joseph N.A. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Skaria.C.P. Vs State of Kerala

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sunil

Kanaka C. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission.

K.N.Vinod Chandran Vs Government of Kerala