JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As these O.P.(KAT)s and Writ Appeal involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners/appellants in all these petitions were candidates included in various rank lists published by the Kerala Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as the “PSC”] in connection with selection to various posts. The validity of the rank lists was to expire on various dates between 5.2.2021 and 3.8.2021. Taking note of the COVID pandemic situation that prevailed in the State, that effectively disabled the PSC from holding examination for selection of candidates to various posts, the PSC, by a notification dated 5.2.2021, extended the validity period of the various rank lists that were to expire between 5.2.2021 and 3.8.2021, up till 4.8.2021.

The extension of the validity period of the rank lists as aforesaid was apparently done in exercise of the power of the PSC under the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Procedural Rules”]. The petitioners herein approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal [KAT] through the O.A.s aforementioned contending that the extension granted by the PSC to all the rank lists that stood to expire between 5.2.2021 and 3.8.2021 was not uniform, and therefore not in accordance with the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Procedural Rules. In particular, it was pointed out that some of the rank lists stood extended only by a couple of months and well short of the minimum of three months contemplated under the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure. While the prayer in the O.A.s was for a direction to the PSC to extend the validity period of various rank lists uniformly for three months, six months or such other period falling short of the maximum aggregate period of four and a half years, the Tribunal found that the mere fact that the various rank lists that expired during the period mentioned in the notification would get different periods of extension pursuant to the Notification, did not tantamount to meting out any discrimination by the PSC in the matter of grant of extension to rank lists. The Tribunal was of the view that when the PSC exercised its power in accordance with the 5th proviso to Rule 13, it had to be satisfied of the existence of a situation which required the extension of a ranked list, and when the particular circumstance under which the extension was granted was expected to come to an end by the outer date prescribed in the notification, it had to be understood that the lists that obtained the minimum extension would be a list that was least affected by the circumstances under which the general extension was granted. A distinction was also drawn by the Tribunal between the words 'ranked lists' used in the 5th proviso to Rule 13 as against 'ranked list' used in the other provisos to Rule 13 to hold that the PSC, while invoking the 5th proviso to Rule 13, was not bound to provide a minimum extension of three months to individual rank lists which fell within the purview of the extension. The O.A.s were therefore dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. In W.A.No.401/2022, the judgment dated 4.3.2022 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.15071/2021 is impugned. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge, relying on the same order of the KAT that dismissed the O.A.s of the petitioners in the O.P.(KAT)s referred above, and following the observations of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1865/2017 found that there was no ground made out for granting the declaration sought by the appellants for keeping the rank list in question valid for a further period of 12 months from 4.8.2021.

4. We have heard Smt.Aruna A., Sri.Varun C. Vijay and Sri.S.Sabarinadh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants in these petitions and Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. We have also heard Sri.Bijoy Ch