Ajithkumar P. vs Remin K. R. - 2015 Supreme(SC) 1555

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 1555

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Ajithkumar P. and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Remin K.R. and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8536 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28428 of 2014)
With
Girilal D. - Appellant
Versus
Nidheesh B. & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8537 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28743 of 2014)
Decided On : 13-10-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Santosh Krishnan, Hari Kumar G. and Sanand Ramakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P.V. Dinesh, Malini Poduval, M.T. George and Temple Law Firm, Advocates.

Headnote:
Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure – Rules 3, 4, 2, 14 – Notification – Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications from the qualified candidates for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector (Trainee). – Notification did not specify the number of posts sought to be filled up but mentioned that the posts are sought to be filled up from three sources. They are, (1) "Category No. 315/2007-Open market. – (2) Category No.316/2007-Graduate Ministerial Staff of Police and Vigilance Department, Fingerprint Experts, Fingerprint Searchers of the Finger Print Bureau. – (3) Category No. 317/2007-Graduate Police Constables, Head Constables and officers of the corresponding rank in the police Department." – Held, Conclusion reached by the High Court is erroneous. – Preliminary examination for shortlisting candidates who would be eligible to take the Rule 3 examinations has no statutory basis. – Neither the Kerala S&S Rules nor the Rules of Procedure contemplate such preliminary examination. – However, this Court recognized, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath & Others, (2009) 5 SCC 1; Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Others v. V. Chrysolite, (2013) 16 SCC 702 existence of a legal authority to conduct a preliminary examination wherever an unmanageably large number of applications are received for filling up a limited number of posts. – Rule 14(e) of the Kerala S&S Rules and Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure relied upon by the High Court refer to ranked list - a defined expression under Rule 2(g) of the Rules of Procedure. – Such ranked-list is prepared only pursuant to the Rule 3 examinations. – A preliminary screening test is outside the purview of the Rule 3 examinations. – Therefore, irrespective of the content of Rule 14(e) of the Kerala S&S Rules or the 3rd proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure relied upon by the High Court, these Rules can have no application in the context of preparation of a shortlist pursuant to a preliminary examination. – Basic premise on which the High Court sought to distinguish the three judgments relied upon by the appellants (referred to supra) is legally untenable. – Impugned judgment rightly understood the 3 judgments relied upon by the appellants herein as laying down a principle that a relaxation or concession given at the preliminary stage cannot have any relevance in determining the merit of the candidate. – Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment is unsustainable and is accordingly set-aside. – Appeals Allowed

JUDGMENT :

J. Chelameswar, J.

Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.08.2014 of the High Court of Kerala in O.P.(KAT) No.239 of 2014 and O.P.(KAT) No.112 of 2014, the unsuccessful petitioners therein preferred these two special leave petitions.

2. Leave granted.

3. The above-mentioned Original Petitions (writ petitions) were filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by which the Tribunal disposed of the three original applications O.A. Nos. 2395/13, 2587/13 and 58/14.

4. The background facts of the instant litigation are as follows :

"(1) "Category No. 315/2007-Open market.

(2) Category No.316/2007-Graduate Ministerial Staff of Police and Vigilance Department, Fingerprint Experts, Fingerprint Searchers of the Finger Print Bureau.

(3) Category No. 317/2007-Graduate Police Constables, Head Constables and officers of the corresponding rank in the police Department."

5. It is also specified in the notification that the vacancies will be apportioned among the three categories mentioned above in accordance with certain orders issued earlier by the Government of Kerala, the details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this judgment.

6. There are a set of rules known as 'The Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure' (for short "Rules of Procedure"), containing the procedure to be followed by the Service Commission in making selections for filling up any posts in the service of the State of Kerala. When the Service Commission is so called upon, the Service Commission is authorised to conduct one or more of the examinations indicated under Rule 3 of the said Rules to assess merit of candidates who seek appointment. The relevant portion of the Rule reads:

conduct all or any one or more of the following examinations

(i) Written Examination

(ii) Practical Test

(iii) Physical Efficiency Test

(iv) Oral Test (Interview)

(v) Any other test or examination, which the Commission may deem fit to hold."

7. Further, under Rule 4 wherever the Service Commission decides to conduct either a written examination or a practical test or both for filling up any posts, the Service Commission is required to announce the following information:

(a) the qualifications required of the candidates for the examination;

(b) the conditions of admission to the examination including the fees;

(d) the number of vacancies to be filled from among the candidates for the examination."

8. In response to the notification, the Service Commission received about 42,000 (forty two thousand) applications.

9. For the recruitment in question, the Service Commission admittedly decided to hold a written examination followed by an oral test (contemplated under Rule 3, hereinafter referred to as 'Rule 3 examinations' for the sake of convenience). However, in view of the large number of applications received, the Service Commission thought it fit to shortlist candidates who could be permitted to appear for the Rule 3 examinations by conducting a preliminary examination for all the 42,000 applicants.

10. The Commission initially opined that 2000, out of the total 42000, applicants could be short-listed through such examination process. After the examination was conducted, on examining the list of 2000 successful candidates (who stood at the top of the list), the Service Commission reached a tentative conclusion that subjecting only those 2000 candidates for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1555

Cases Referred (6)