Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These original petitions are filed by the Public Service Commission invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It challenges different verdicts of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal interfering with the PSC's decisions refusing to re-schedule the physical efficiency test of the woman candidates who were passing through different milestones of pregnancy or maternity when they were called for such test for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Excise Guards or Women Police Constables.

2. The learned standing counsel for the PSC, also making reference to Rangaswamy v. PSC [1982 KLT 574] and J. & K.Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan [AIR 1994 SC 1808], argued that the process of finalisation of the select list is not an act or event which occurs in a single day, that is to say, on the date of publication of the select list. He says that the process of finalisation of the select list, going by the procedure prescribed, would necessarily take reasonable time from the finalisation of initial select list till the approval of that draft by the competent finalising authority after it being vetted at different stages to make it error-free. He, therefore, argues that if the date of finalisation of the select list is treated as the date until which a request for a second opportunity for physical efficiency test could be ordered, that would put the entire select list to jeopardy and stalemate.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants before the Tribunal (candidates) argued that whatever be the legal issues, the fact of the matter remains that on ground realities, the women, who had applied for the different posts and are involved in these litigations, have the eligibility for a second opportunity as directed by the Tribunal, having regard to the proximity of the date of the physical efficiency test as fixed by the PSC and the relevant maternal milestones, particularly the date of delivery of the child or the expected date for such delivery.

4. The Tribunal relied on the Bench decision of this Court in KPSC v. K.Jayasree [2014(1) KHC 358], also noticing the order passed by this Court on R.P.No.535 of 2000 filed by the PSC seeking review of that judgment. It initially decided O.A.No.2582 of 2013 and O.A.No.2583 of 2013 from which OP (KAT).No.59 of 2014 and OP (KAT).No.62 of 2014 arise respectively.

5. In its net effect, the decision of the Division Bench in K. Jayasree (supra) read with the order on the review petition is that a pregnant woman cannot be denied an opportunity to have adequate means of livelihood merely on account of the biological reason that she was unable to appear for the physical efficiency test at a given point of time and that a pregnant woman cannot be compelled to undergo the endurance test at a time when it was dangerous to her life and that of the baby in her womb. It was held that the effect of refusal on the part of the PSC to grant extension of time for such a woman to participate in the physical efficiency test would amount to denial of opportunity to get employment which would enable her to have a decent life. However, while issuing the order on the review petition, it was observed by this Court that the direction contained in the judgment dated 11.10.2000 in the writ appeal was issued taking into account the fact that the selection list had not been finalised in that case at the time when the motion was made and that the PSC will not be under an obligation to conduct fresh endurance test if motion therefor comes after the finalisation of the selection list.

6. While we are in agreement with the reasoning in K. Jayasree (supra), making reference to Article 42 of the Constitution of India and varied provisions in the Maternity Protection Conventions of the International Labour Organisation which were adopted in the General Conference of ILO at Geneva on 30.5.2000, we may state that though the said precedent was rendered noting that Indi