Dismissed

S. Gopa Kumar v. State of Kerala & Kerala Public Service Commission

Supreme Court21 Sept 19811981 INSC 169 · [1982] 1 S.C.R. 7441981 INSC 169

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recruitment of junior engineers by the Kerala Public Service Commission led to separate Civil and Mechanical Engineering rank lists under High Court directions, but earlier Supreme Court orders referred inadvertently to a 'common list'. The Court clarified the words were an inadvertent error, upheld the separate lists, and dismissed the special leave petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

S. Gopa Kumar versus State of Kerala & Kerala… — Service and Employment | Supreme Court (1982)

A 744 ,

1'- •

S. GOPA KUMAR

STATE OF KERALA & KERALA PUBLIC

SERVICE COMMISSION

September 21, 1981

! j

(R.S. PATHAK AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.]

¶11

c	Practice and Procedure-lnadvertanterrorintheorderofSupremeCourt- lfcouldbecorrected.
D	Forselectionofcandidates for the postofjunior engineers in the Public Works Department, the State Public Service Commission prescribed a written test in which persons qualified inCiviJEngineering could answer questions in categoryIand those qualified in Mechanical Engineering could answer questions incategoryII,bothofwhich were contained in the same question paper.
E	After the test and interview but before the common rank listwasprepared some candidates impugned the methodofselection alleging that the categoriesof Civil Engineering branch and Mechanical Engineering branch could notbe rationally includedina common rank list. A single Judgeofthe High Court directed the Service Commission to prepare separate lists in respect of eachofthe two branches. A Division Bench ofthe High Court dismissed appealsofsomeofthe aggrieved candidates.
F	Dismissing the petition for grantofspecial leavefiledby one candidate this Court observed thatitwas open to the petitioner to choose the Civil or Mechanical Engineering from the "common list" preparedbythe Service Commission. When the State came_to_this Court for clarificationofthe earlier order. this Court again said that if the candidate's turn cameinthe "common list"hewas entitled to claim the post under the earlier ordersofthis Court.
G	Seeking clarificationanddirections, theStateGovernment prayedthatthe expression_'common list'_preparedbythe Public Service Commissionbedeleted from the earlier ordersofthis Court so as to enable the Commission to prepare separate listsinconformity with the High Court's directions.
H	HELD : The words "common list" mentionedinthe two earlier orders ofthis Courtwereused through inadvertance. The High Court directed the Public Service Commission to preparetwoseparate rank lists: one for Civil Engineering Graduates and other for Mechanical Engineering Graduates on the basis of examination already conducted. The Public Service Commission

¶12

s. GOPA KUMAR v. KERALA (Baharu/ Islam, J.)

745

accordingly prepared two rank lists. The name of the petitioner herein appeared in the list of Mechanical Engineering Graduates and he would be appointed. when his turn came. [749 C-E]

¶17

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitio::. (Civil) Nos. 2081-84 of 1980.

¶18

From the judgment and order dated the 23rd November, 1979 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W .A. Nos. 149, 167, 169 and 170of1979.

¶19

A.S. Nambiar and P. Parameswaran for the Petitioner.

¶20

K. Sudhakaran Adv. Gen. of Kerala, V. J. Francis and Mustafakani Rowthor for Respondent No. 2.

¶21

¶22

M. M. Abdul Khader and K.M.K. Nair for Respondent no. 4, ~ ! Kerala Public Service Commission.

¶23

P. Govindan Nair and Mrs. Baby Krishnan for Respondent No. 5.

¶24

¶25

K. Prabhakaran for the Intervener.

¶26

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶27

¶28

., _ BAHARUL ISLAM, J. In these special leave petitions, the petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 1979 of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing a number of writ appeals. The relevant facts may be stated thus :

¶29

¶30

The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter 'KPSC') imited applications for filling up 130 expected vacancies in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Public Works Department, as per notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 16th May, 1978. The qualifications specified for the posts were B.Sc. in Civil Engineering or Mechanical Engineering of the Kerala University or its equivalent as prescribed by the special rules of the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch). The applicants had to appear in the written test conducted by the KPSC and thereafter in an interview held by it. There was a common question paper which contained, in category I, questions in Civil Engineering and in Category II, questions in Mechanical Engineering. Applicants who were qualified in Civil Engineering had to answer the

746

[1982] 1 S.C.R

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

•- >r-->

questions in Category I, and those qualified in Mechanical Engineering the questions in Category II.

¶46

;-.. .

¶47

After the written test and the interview, but before a common rank list was prepared by the KPSC as was intened, 8 Writ Petitions were filed in the Kerala High Court by applicants holding Civil Engineering degrees. By these Writ Petitions the preparation of a common rank list and also the procedure of the examination and a method of selection were challenged. It was prayed in the Wr,it Petitions that the KPSC be directed to effect selection and prepare and publish separate rank lists of selected applicants holding Civil and Mechanical Engineering degrees. It was contended in the applications that the applicants who had qualified in Civil Engineering question paper and answered the questions in Category I on the one hand and those who bad qualified in Mechanical Engineering and answered questions indicated in Category II in the question paper could not rationally be included in a common rank list after the interview.

¶48

¶49

The learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court by a common judgment dated 2nd April. 1979 allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the Government of Kerala and the KPSC to prepare "two lists, namely, one for the Civil Bench and the other for the Mechanical Branch on the basis of examination already conducted". He proceeded : "With respect to it the Service Commission has not yet published the rank list. On receiving information from the Government on the above lines, the Public Service Commission is directed to prepare the two separate rank lists, one for the Civil Bench and other for the Mechanical Branch. On publication of the two lists the Government can request the Service Commission to advise the candidates for appointment to these branches on the basis of the vacancies available in these two branches."

¶50

¶51

¶52

The Kerala Government and the KPSC accepted the directions given by the learned Single Judge and proceeded to take steps for the implementation thereof. However, some of the aggrieved respondents in the Writ Petitions filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeals were ultimately dismissed, in view of the fact that the KPSC had advised 239 candidates according to the separate lists for Civil and Mechanical Engineering prepared on the basis of directions given by the learned Single Judge and that these candidates had already been appointed.

747

s. GOPA KUMAR v. KERALA (Baharul Islam, J.)

¶57

One of the respondents, Shri S. Gopa Kumar, who held a Mechanical Engineering degree, was one of the Special Leave Petitioners before us. He challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 23rd March, 1979. This Court by an ex-parte order dated 23rd April, 1980 dismissed the Special Leave Petition with the following observations :

¶58

¶59

;

¶60

"The prejudice that the petitioner complains of is taking care of by the High Court emphasizing the fact that the petitioner is entitled to exercise his option. It is stated that he has come high in the Common list prepared by the Public Service Commission. It is open to him to choose which wing, Civil or Mechanical, suits him most. In that view, we are unable to perceive any prejudice especially because on his option being exercised for the general or mechanical wing, as the case may be, he will be chosen in terms of his willingness.

¶61

All SL.Ps dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

It may be mentioned that preparation of no common list was directed either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. On the contrary the direction expressiy was for preparation of separate lists for Civil Engineer and Mechanical Engineer candidates as stated above. It has also been stated above that in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in his judgment in effect upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, the Government and the Public Service Commission of Kerala rroceeded to prepare separate lists. But facing difficulties, in view of the observation of this Court in its Order dated 23rd April 1980 quoted above, the State of Kerala filed a petition before this Court for clarifications. This Court passed the following order dated 11th November, 1980 :

¶67

"We have heard learned Advocate General and Shri A.S. Nambiar on the modification or clarification sought. The actual position has already been explained in the Order by this Court dated 28.4.80. There it has been stated clearly that the petitioner will be entitled to exercise his option and then take his turn according to his rank in the common list prepared by the Public Service Commission.

748

[1982] I s.c.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶75

¶76

¶77

Therefore the petitioner will be entitled to a post, if he has exercised his option in terms of this Court's order and he is high enough in the common list for claiming the post. We have no idea, nor are we concerned, whether such a vacancy has arisen. If a post has become vacant and the petitioner's turn comes in the common list he is entitled to claim that post under the orders of this Court.. .... "

¶78

The above order, as it appears, also refers to a common list although no common list was directed to be prepared or was prepared by the KPSC. This was obviously an inadvertent C mistake.

¶79

¶80

Since there was no common list and since no option was given to the Special leave Petitioners before us by the judgment of the Kerala High Court, the KPSC faced difficulties in giving effect to the directions given by the High Court. The KPSC therefore tas made t~e Misc. Petition before us for clarifications and directions, particularly praying that the expression "the common list prepared by the Public Service Commission should be deleted."

¶81

¶82

¶83

IO. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the judgments of the Kerala High Court passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. This Court by its order dated 28th April, 1980 dismissed all the S.1.Ps. with observations referred to above. This Order as well as the order dated 11th November, 1980 has been subsequently recalled by this Court by its Order dated 7th April, 1981, and we do not find any valid ground to reverse the judgments of the High Court. But in view of the difficulties faced by the KPSC and the Government of Kerala, it is necessary to clarify the position and give necessary directions.

¶84

¶85

Clause 4 of the Government Order No. G.O.MS.101/79/ PWD&E dated 27th September, 1979 the Government constituted the Kerala Engineering Service (Mechanical Branch) and Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (Mechanical Branch) with posts prescribed therein. It reads thus :

¶86

¶87

"Government also order that all those who have submitted unconditional options and who possess the required qualifications prescribed in the rules will be appointed by transfer to the respective service. In the case of any category for which the number of options is more than the

¶88

s. GOPA KUMAR v. KERALA (Baharul Islam, J.)

749

,_,

appointment by transfer aud the junior persons will be admitted, to the services as and when vacancies arise. In case where the number of officers who had submitted options is less than the number of posts, the remaining vacancies will be provided by direct recruitment as provided in rule (9) of the respective special rules. The Chief Engineer B & R will implement the above orders forthwith."

Clause 4 gave unconditional options to those in the Kerala Engineering Service (General Branch) to remain in the said bra.1ch or to choose the newly constituted Kerala Engineering SubJrdin1te i Service (Mechanical Branch). As stated earlier the Kerala G Jvernment or the KPSC was not directed to prepare a commJn list. Common List was referred to in the earlier orders in this Court through certain misapprehensions. The KPSC bas stated in its counter affidavit to the S.L.P. filed by Shri S. Gopa Kumar against the judgment of the High Court that there were directions to the KPSC to prepare two separate rank lists one for Civil Engineering graduates and the other for Mechanical Engineering graduate; on the basis of examination already conducted. Accordingly the KPSC prepared the two rank lirts-one for Civil Engineering and other for the Mechanical Engineering graduates. The name of Gopa Kumar appears in the latter list. The rank list for Engineering (Civil) contains names of l 52 candidates and the other (Mechanical) cJutains 202 candidates. All the Civil Engineering selected have already been appointed. Shri Gopa Kumar's iank was 138 in the rank list of Engineers (Mechanical). He will be appointed when his turn comes.

¶99

We think that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in dismissing the writ appeals, having regard to the developments which have taken place.

¶100

Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶101

Petitions dismissed .

P.B.R.

. • ,.

S. Gopa Kumar v. State of Kerala & Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S. Gopa Kumar v. State of Kerala & Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ludhichem Agencies etc. versus Ahmed R.V. Peer Mohamed and Anr.

Math Sauna and Ors. versus Kedar Nath @ Uma Shankar & Ors.

Mangal Sen versus Kanchhid Mal

Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society & Ors. etc. etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Binny and Hansraj versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi versus Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd.