2009 Supreme(SC) 593

2009(3) Supreme 191
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Nair Service Society — Appellants
versus
Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 20419 of 2008]
And
CA No. 1993 of 2009 [@ SLP(C) No. 29345 of 2008]
CA No. 1994 of 2009 [@ SLP(C) No. 30967 of 2008]
CA No. 2000 of 2009 [@ SLP(C) No. 2674 of 2008]
With
CA No. 1992 of 2009 [@ SLP(C) No. 21139 of 2008]
CA No. 1995-1999 of 2009 [@ SLP(C) Nos. 439-443 of 2008]
Decided on : 30-03-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
State is not bound to make a reservation, but it is empowered to do so in its own discretion.

Headnote:(a) Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Rules 14(a) and (b) – A harmonious interpretation has to be given to Rules 14 (a) and Rule 14 (b) – Neither prevails over the other. (Para 16)

        (b) Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Rules 14 (a) and (b) r/w Rule 14 (d) – The correct interpretation of the Rules is that a common rank list as per merit for all the successful candidates in respect of selection to the vacancies should be prepared – Reservation should be applied with reference to units of 20 – That is, the first 20 most meritorious candidates from Serial No. 1 to 20 in that common rank list should first be considered for the purpose of reservation – At that stage, candidates from Serial No. 21 and below are not to be considered – Out of these 20 most meritorious candidates, the appointments have then to be made in accordance with Rule 14 (c) – Only after the selections have been made against these first 20 most meritorious selected candidates, that the P.S.C. should move to the next batch of 20 in the rank list and so on. (Paras 18 to 20)

        (c) Interpretation of statutes – Hardship is not a relevant consideration when the meaning of the Rule is plain and clear. (Para 22)

        (d) Interpretation of statutes – Where the language of the Act or the Rules is clear and explicit, the words of the statute alone represents the intention of the legislature – The effect of High Court’s erroneous reading the Rule 14(a) is to increase the total reservation in favour of the reserved categories beyond 50% and to dilute the merit of those chosen to ever lower levels in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules – Not permissible. (Para 23)

        1995 Supp (1) SCC 192; (1978) 1 SCC 636; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 215 – Relied upon.

        (e) Reservation – The Commission has been advising appointments based on the rank list for the open merit category and the supplementary list for the reserved category – An accepted practice which has been followed by the P.S.C. for so long a period should not be lightly disturbed. (Para 25)

        (2003) 12 SCC 10 – Relied upon.

        (f) Words and Phrases – Terms “integrated cycle” and “unit of appointment” are entirely different concepts – Rationale for the integrated cycle based on a 100-point roster is merely to give effect to the principle of rotation and sub-rotation among the reserved category candidates in respect of vacancies that arise at different points of time over a period of one year to a maximum of three years that the list is in force – The concept of an “integrated cycle” could never be the basis for rendering the “unit of appointment” of 20 in Rule 14(a) otiose in cases where the number of vacancies reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission exceeds 20. (Paras 26 and 27)

        (g) Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Rule 14(c) – Commission had received requisitions on various dates between February 2003 and January 2007 ranging from 3 vacancies to 44 vacancies – Rule 14(c) lays down a scheme of rotation for every block of 20 vacancies and this rule must be applied in the order in which the vacancies occur – Commission cannot wait until the total number of vacancies is reported to the Commission so as to determine whether the vacancies have exceeded 20 or not. (Para 28)

        (1975) 3 SCC 628 – Relied upon.

        (h) Reservation – Rule 14 (b) ought to be read consistently with Rule 14(a) to the extent that where an OBC or SC/ST candidate is so placed in the merit list that he would be advised against the Open Competition category, i.e. between 1,3,5, 7,9,11,13,15,17,19 the seats in the reserved category, i.e. between 2,4,6, 8,10,12,14,16,18,20 shall not reduce to that extent – The members of OBC and SC/ST would still be entitled to 40% and 10% reservations respectively. (Para 30)

        (1975) 3 SCC 628; (2003) 12 SCC 10 – Relied upon.

        (i) Interpretation of statutes – In absence of challenge to the validity of the rule, the so-called purposive interpretation sought to be placed on the Rules by the High Court was misconceived – Not acceptable. (Para 41)

        (j) Reservation – State is not bound to make a reservation, but it is empowered to do so in its own discretion. (Para 43)

        (2006) 8 SCC 212 – Relied upon.

        (k) Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Rule 14(b) – Reserved category candidates can compete for the non-reserved post as – Rule 14(b), however, will apply only to units of 20 candidates, and not for the total vacancies. (Para 48)

        (1995) 2 SCC 745 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The appellant society in the first of the appeals is an incorporated body rendering social service. It purports to espouse the cause of merit in appointments in government service and public sector undertakings.

        2. The appellant in the second of the appeals (not a party before the High Court) is a general category candidate whose chance of selection and appointment as a medical officer was adversely affected by the decision of the High Court.

        3. The appellant in the third of the appeals is the Kerala Public Service Commission, which is entrusted the task of executing the recruitment and selection process.

        4. The appellants in the fourth of the appeals (not parties before the High Court) are candidates included in the rank list prepared and published by PSC for different posts in various departments. According to them they would have been advised and appointed but for the interpretation placed by the High Court in its decision in WA No. 1697 of 2008.

       Finding of the Court :

        Commission has correctly advised candidates in the order in which the requisitions were received, and that too by correctly applying the principle contained in the rules.

       Result : Appeals allowed.