Dismissed

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Jayasree G

Kerala HC7 Aug 2023WA/1019/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court writ appeal dismissed the appeal against a Single Judge order which had quashed PSC proceedings. The Division Bench held that the petitioner was barred by res judicata from seeking benefits of a new Supreme Court judgment as her eligibility had already been finally determined by a prior adverse order in the same Court. Consequently, the Single Judge's order was set aside and the W

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of 27.10.2022 is set aside and the Writ Petition No.9281/2022 is dismissed.

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jayasree G — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

W.A. NO. 1019 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2022 IN WP(C).NO.9281/2022 OF THE

¶9

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2:

¶11

1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695004.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695004.

¶13

BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO. 3 & 4:

¶15

1 JAYASREE G. AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURIZHUMUTTAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS SECRETARY, KAVALLOOR PATTIKAJATHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T.817, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695013.

¶16

2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KAVALLOOR, PATTIKAJATHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. T.817 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695013.

¶17

3 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), CO-BANK TOWERS, HEAD OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN ALONG WITH ADV. SRI.C.P.SABARI FOR R1 ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R3

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.

¶21

=============================================

¶22

W. A. No. 1019 of 2023

¶23

(arising out of the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2022 in

¶24

W. P. (C) No. 9281/2022)

¶25

============================================== Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2023

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶28

The instant intra court appeal, instituted under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, is directed against the impugned judgment rendered on 27.10.2022 by the learned Single Judge, disposing of the instant Writ Petition (Civil) - WP(C).No.9281/2022. The appellants herein are respondents 1 & 2 in the WP(C). R-1 in this Appeal is the writ petitioner and R-2 & R-3 herein are respondents 3 & 4 respectively in the WP(C).

¶29

Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), appearing for the writ appellants, Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned Advocate instructed by Sri.C.P.Sabari, learned counsel appearing for R-1 herein/writ petitioner and Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel appearing for R-3. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in this Appeal, notice to R-2 will stand dispensed with.

¶30

The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) – WP(C).No.9281/2022, are as follows:

¶31

..2..

¶32

W. A. No. 1019/2023

¶33

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the first and second respondents to advice the petitioners from the rank list prepared on the basis of Ext.P4 to the post of Clerk / Cashier in the third respondent bank and a further direction to the third respondent to appointment her on the basis of said advice memo.

¶34

ii) declare that the first and second respondents are bound to advice the petitioner from the rank list prepared on the basis of Ext.P4 and the fourth respondent is bound to appoint the petitioner to the post of Clerk / Cashier, in the light of the Ext.P10 Judgment of the Supreme Court and to assign the due seniority as per the rank list.

¶35

iii) declare that petitioners are entitled to get appointment and assign their seniority in the post of Clerk / Cashier as in the rank list and consequential benefits and delay of disposal of the case by the Supreme Court cannot be a detrimental factor to grant the relief.

¶36

iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 & P12 after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

¶37

v) Call for the records leading to issue Ext. P14 and quash the same by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

¶38

vi) declare that petitioner is entitled to be included in the rank list of Clerk / Cashier prepared on the basis of Ext.P1 notification.

¶39

vii) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶40

The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 27.10.2022, disposing of the instant WP(C).No.9281/2022, ordering that the impugned proceedings of the PSC will stand set aside and the respondent PSC authorities are also directed to initiate and complete consequential action, on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Radhamani [2021 (5) KLT 262

¶41

..3..

¶42

W. A. No. 1019/2023

¶43

(SC)] as expeditiously as possible, but within 2 months. As per the said verdict, rendered by the Apex Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Radhamani [2021 (5) KLT 262 (SC)] , it has been ordered by the Apex Court that candidates, who participate in the selection process conducted by the PSC, to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the central society (District Co-operative Bank concerned), from among the 50% quota set apart for regular employees of primary co-operative societies affiliated to the said central society, need to have the educational qualification of only matriculation (pass in SSLC) along with the qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation and that, such candidates need not necessarily have graduation or degree.

¶44

However, it is to be noted that, in the instant case, R-1 herein/writ petitioner has already suffered an adverse verdict of a learned Single Judge of this Court, as per Ext.P-15 rendered as early as on 8.3.2021 in WP(C).No.980/2011 filed by her, in respect of the very same selection process, in which this Court has found that the writ petitioner was not eligible for selection, inasmuch as she was not an employee of the primary co-operative society concerned and that, she could not produce the service certificate to show that she was a regular employee of the claimed primary co-operative society,

¶45

..4..

¶46

W. A. No. 1019/2023

¶47

as on the last date of submission of her application to the PSC.

¶48

It is common ground that the writ petitioner has never chosen to challenge the abovesaid Ext.P-15 verdict of the Single Bench, either by way of review or by writ appeal. It is without resorting to such review remedy or appellate remedy to challenge Ext.P-15, in the manner known to law, that she has chosen to file a fresh writ petition, i.e. the instant WP(C).No.9281/2022, claiming the benefit of the directions issued by the Apex Court in another matter in issue, etc., which is related to educational qualifications of the candidates concerned. Hence, it can be seen that the writ petitioner is barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata from resurrecting her claim, which has already been determined and finalised by Ext.P-15 verdict of this Court. However, it is also to be noted that the writ petitioner has produced a copy of the said verdict, as per Ext.P-15. The learned Single Judge should have non suited the writ petitioner on the ground of res judicata, in view of Ext.P-15 adverse verdict suffered by her.

¶49

Now, even if the Apex Court's judgment is implemented, the issue relating to the very eligiblity of the writ petitioner has already been decided and finalised by Ext.P-15 verdict, with the result that her candidature is only to be rejected. So, the present litigative

¶50

W. A. No. 1019/2023

¶51

..5..

¶52

exercise was highly unnecessary. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment would deserve interdiction. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned judgment, rendered on 27.10.2022, by the learned Single Judge, disposing of WP(C).No.9281/2022, will stand set aside. Consequently, WP(C).No.9281/2022 will stand dismissed for the abovesaid reasons.

¶53

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand finally disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶58

MMG

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Jayasree G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Jayasree G

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

P.J. Tomsy Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Beshy Kuriakose

State of Kerala, Vs Aravind Sachil.S.

Abnco Vie Win Ent. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Kiidc)

Ajitkumar Vs Union of India

Prameela L Vs State of Kerala