The main legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'may' in statutory provisions should be interpreted in the context of the purpose and object of the enactment, and the consequences of insisting on strict observance of the provisions to determine whether the consultation with the Public Service Commission is mandatory for Corporations and Government Companies.

K.T. Sankaran, J.

A Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Full Bench for decision on the following questions: (1) Whether the word 'may' used in Section 3 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects Certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970 (Act 19 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as "the Additional Functions Act") should be treated as 'shall' making it mandatory for the Corporations and Government Companies as defined in the Additional Functions Act to consult the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'PSC') for making appointment of employees; and (2) Whether the Government has any power at all under the Additional Functions Act or Rules or otherwise to notify specifying the posts or excluding the posts from the operation of the Additional Functions Act and Rules.

2. The Writ Petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the Indian National Trade Union Congress, Ernakulam District Committee and one P.B. Sathishkumar working in Traco Cable Company Limited, challenging Ext.P6 Government Order, G.O.(Ms) No.1/2011/ID dated 1.1.2011, by which it was decided to create certain new posts in eight new factories and eight expansion/modernization projects in respondents 3 to 12 Public Sector Undertakings and accorded sanction to the Chief Executive Officers of the respective Public Sector Undertakings to fill up those posts in a special manner as stated in Annexures I and II fully observing the existing reservation norms in Public Sector Undertakings.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the recruitment process in respondents 3 to 12 Public Sector Undertakings should be as evolved by the PSC and Employment Exchange. It is also contended that any appointment made by-passing the constitutional functionaries like the PSC and Employment Exchange would be illegal, void and unsustainable.

4. From the reference order, it is seen that the main thrust of arguments was that going by Section 3 of the Additional Functions Act, it is mandatory that the Corporations and Government Companies, as defined in the Additional Functions Act, should consult the PSC on all matters relating to the methods of recruitment of employees and the principles to be followed in making appointment of the employees by direct recruitment in those Corporations and Government Companies. Though the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are mainly with respect to the validity of Ext.P6 Government Order, the main question to be decided is question No.1 referred to in paragraph 1 above. Question No.2 is only subsidiary to question No.1.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to Articles 320 and 321 of the Constitution of India and the Additional Functions Act as well as the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) Act, 1970. He also relied on the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram ((2013) 4 SCC 280); Krishnan Nair Sankaran Nair v. S. Chellappan Pillai (1966 KLT 517); Dinkar Anna Patil and another v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1999 SC 152); Bachahan Devi and another v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and another ((2008) 12 SCC 372); Deewan Singh and others v. Rajendra PD. Ardevi and others ((2007) 10 SCC 528); Chaluvegowda and others v. State by Circle Inspector of Police ((2012) 13 SCC 538); and Bangalore Turf Club Limited v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation ((2014) 9 SCC 657). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader relied on the decisions in Mohammed Shafi and others v. State of Kerala & others (1976 KLT 725); Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96); Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 448); and Venugopal K.N. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2009 (4) KHC 52).

6. Article 320 of the Constitution of India provides for functions of the Publi