SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ker) 71

High Court of Kerala
ANTONY DOMINIC
G. Bindu., w/o. B. Sunilkumar & Another
Versus
Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary
W.P.(C) Nos.28055, 33683, 35927, 36827, 36844, 37474, 37959, 38043, 38060, 38148, 38253, 38254, 38579 & 38537 of 2010, 64, 135, 788, 874, 950, 1433, 1878, 1959, 2060, 2156, 2538, 2638, 2863, 2923, 3004, 3039, 3042, 3062, 3337, 3851, 4652, 4833, 4900, 5647, 5853, 5985, 7942, 9345, 10849, 10904, 11650, 11914, 12055, 12571, 13226, 13355, 14007, 14447, 14846, 15629, 16455, 16516, 16824, 17001, 17214, 18167, 18692, 18855, 19391, 19471, 19548, 19642, 19677, 19784, 20311, 22333, 22436 of 2011
Decided on: 18-01-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Liji J. Vadakedom, Kaleeswaram Raj, Shyson P. Manguzha, K. Siju, S. Sudheeshkar, Mrs. Bindu George, Babu S. Nair, R. Ramadas, Babu Karukapadath, Mrs. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, K.A. Noushad, P.G. Pramod, N. Sugathan, Mrs. Varsha Bhaskar, Franco, T.J., V.C. Madhavankutty, Mrs. Chincy Gopakumar, Mrs. C.G. Preetha, M.G. Karthikeyan, Nireesh Mathew, T.A. Unnikrishnan, K.S. Praveen, M. Shaju Purushothaman, K.S. Rajesh, Sandeep Gopalakrishnan, Shaji Thomas Porkkattil, N. Nagaresh, Binu Paul, T.V. Vinu, C.A. Sadasivan, Joy P. Jose, K.N. Krishnan Namboothiri, C.V. Sasi, Alexander George, Suman Chakravarthy, G. Harikrishnan, P. Deepak, Mrs. K.R. Rija, N. Raghunath, Jinu Joseph, Rajesh Nambiar, Rajesh Cherian, T.K. Girijan, Vincent Joseph, Mrs. K.S. Sabitha, M. Sasindran, A. Arunkumar, Dinny Thomas, Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Anil K. Narendran, T.P. Sajan, M. Mohammed Navaz, Jeemon K. Abraham, Suresh Kumar Kodoth, Mrs. Hemalatha, A. Mohamed Mustaque, K.R. Avinash (Kunnath), K.P. Sudheer, Sumodh Madhavan Nair, M.K. Pradeepkumar, K. Jaju Babu, Mrs. M.U. Vijayalakshmi, T.R. Sadeesan, T.S. Shyam Prasanth, Mrs. Divya Chandran, C.P. Saji, Abi Antony, Johnson Manayani, Benhur Joseph Manayani, Mrs. S.L. Sylaja, N. Sasidharan Unnithan, K.V. Anil Kumar, Ajith Murali, P. Ramakrishnan, V.A. Muhammed, M. Sajjad, A.K. Abdul Azeez, Renjit George, Liju V. Stephen, Eby Augustine, Mrs. Indu Susan Jacob, N. Anilkumar, Liju, M.P., Baby Mathew, P. Samsudin, E.M. Unnikrishnan (Manjeri), K.C. Antony Mathew, Dr. K.P. Satheesan, M.R. Jayaprasad, P. Mohandas (Ernakulam), Mathew Sunny, Anoop V. Nair, S. Renjith, Mrs. K. Tresa Rani George, P.V. George (Puthiyidam), H. Badaruddin, Mrs. B. Shameera, Shaji Thomas, Shine Mathews (Vadakkekara), R. Surendran, V. Venugopal, T.C. Suresh Menon, U. Balagangadharan, P. Ramakrishnan, Binoy Vasudevan, R. Manikantan, B. Ashok Shenoy, S. Shanavas Khan, N. Vimalan, Jacob Sebastian & Jawahar Jose, Advocates.
For the Respondents: P.C. Sasidharan, (S.C. for K.P.S.C.) & Mrs. Sanjeetha, Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules is available only to candidates who are natives of the district concerned, and the rule was declared unconstitutional and void in light of the provisions contained in Articles 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.

Headnote:

Rule 5A - Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules - 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules - The judgment discusses the interpretation and constitutionality of Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, which provides weightage to candidates belonging to a district for district-wise selection. The court examines the meaning of 'belonging to' and 'nativity' and concludes that the benefit of the rule is available only to candidates who are natives of the district concerned. The court also cites relevant legal provisions and interpretations, including the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, to declare Rule 5A unconstitutional and void.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners claimed the benefit of Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, which provides weightage to candidates belonging to a district for district-wise selection. They argued that the rule should be interpreted to include candidates who belong to the district concerned, regardless of their place of birth or residence. The State and the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) contended that the benefit is available only to those who are natives of the district concerned.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the benefit of Rule 5A is available only to candidates who are natives of the district concerned. It declared Rule 5A unconstitutional and void in light of the provisions contained in Articles 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation and constitutionality of Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, specifically regarding the eligibility for the weightage benefit provided by the rule.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'belonging to' and 'nativity', as well as the relevant legal provisions, including the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan. The court concluded that the benefit of Rule 5A is available only to candidates who are natives of the district concerned.

Final Decision: The court declared Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules unconstitutional and void, but specified that the judgment shall not affect recruitments already made or any candidate who has already been appointed to any service, giving the benefit of Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. No costs were awarded.

Judgment :

Petitioners in these writ petitions are claiming the benefit of Rule 5A of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules (Hereinafter referred to as the "Rules" for short). In WP(C) No.11650/11, there is also an alternative prayer to declare the Rule unconstitutional.

2. Issues raised being common, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The background in which these litigations arise is that by G.O(P) No.5/1993 dt 15.1.1993, Rule 5A was inserted in the Rules, which read as under;

"Where the method of recruitment to any service, class or category is by direct recruitment on district wise basis, such of the candidates belonging to that district who qualify for the interview/become qualified to be included in the ranked list for such of the district-wise posts mentioned in the Annexure to this rule shall be given a weightage of five marks for the selection.

Provided that the candidates who are eligible to get the above weightage marks shall produce along with the application a nativity certificate issued by a competent authority not below the rank of Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk".

(Annexure is omitted)

4. The Explanatory Note to this notification, being relevant, reads as follows;

"At present, the District Offices of the Kerala Public Service Commission are making district-wise selection to certain specified posts. The Kerala Public Service Commission has reported to Government that the candidates belonging to backward district such as erstwhile Malabar area do not get appointment against vacancies to be filled up by district wise selection in their native districts due to tough competition from candidates of other districts. To solve this problem to some extent, the Kerala Public Service Commission has been suggested that weightage of five marks may be given to candidates of native district for district-wise selection for Last Grade and Sub-Clerical posts. Government accept the suggestion of the Kerala Public Service Commission and propose to amend the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1950 for this purpose. This notification is intended to achieve the above object."

5. Subsequently by G.O(P) No.10/2011/P&ARD dt 28.2.11, the Rule was substituted, which also being relevant, is extracted as follows;

"Where the method of recruitment to any post of any service class or category is by direct recruitment on district wise basis, such candidate belonging to that district shall be given a weightage of 5 marks for selection.

Provided that candidates who are eligible to get the above weightage marks shall produce a nativity certificate issued by a competent authority not below the rank of a Tahsildar of the concerned district as and when called for. The entire annexure to Rule 5A in Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rule, 1958 shall be deleted".

6. As is clear from the Rule itself, which is reiterated in the counter affidavits filed by the State and the PSC, both under the rule as it originally stood and as amended, the benefit of weightage is granted only to those candidates who produced Nativity Certificates. In so far as the issuance of the Nativity Certificates is concerned, in the Counter Affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that by GO(MS) No.205/83/RD dt 26.2.1983, guidelines have been prescribed, which are the following;

"1) Where father and mother are born natives of Kerala, Nativity Certificate will be issued to them as well as to their children.

2) Where father or mother is a native of another State and on marriage they are permanently residing in Kerala, Nativity Certificate will be issued to their children. 3) In other cases, only residential certificates will be issued".

7. Counter affidavits also reveal that there was no uniform format for the Nativity Certificates and that in order to remove the consequent difficulties, the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "PSC" for short) wrote to the Government as per its





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top