Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
The District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission - Petitioner
Versus
Simla Beegam, D/o. Abdul Salam & Ors. - Respondents
OP(KAT) No. 160 of 2021
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Kerala Public Service Commission Rules - Rule 13, 7 - Selection process - Vacancy of Part-Time Language Teacher - Appointment to post - Direct 1st respondent to report 1 vacancy of Part-Time Language Teacher (Arabic) to 2nd respondent - To direct 2nd respondent to advice applicant in said vacancy and to direct 1st respondent to appoint applicant as Part-Time Language Teacher - There is no actual vacancy in existence to accommodate original applicant, then, after issuing appointment order, appointing authority will be at liberty to discharge original applicant from service, citing reason of lack of vacancy - Para 14.
Finding of the Court :
Applicant has suffered illegality inasmuch as if legal wrong had not been committed by appointing authority, then vacancy covered by Anx.R-1(af) would have been available for advise and appointment from Anx.A-1 rank list - Court is of view that Tribunal was fully right in exercising its equitable direction, to ensure that illegality is remedied and justice is accorded to applicant - Court is of firm view that case is a fit case for exercising equity jurisdiction to remedy legal wrong suffered by applicant - It is ordered that 2nd respondent-Deputy Director of Education, will immediately issue orders appointing original applicant to post of Part-Time Junior Language Teacher - Consequently, it is also ordered that in such a scenario, immediately after arising of next vacancy, irrespective as to quota to which said vacancy would arise, should be utilised for re-appointing original applicant to post in question, as envisaged in aforesaid Rule 7.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Alexander Thomas, J.
The instant Original Petition is directed against the impugned verdict rendered on 14.1.2020 in O.A.(Ekm) No. 2826/2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench. The petitioner herein (The District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission) is the 2nd respondent in the O.A. and R-1 herein is the sole applicant in the O.A. Respondents 2 & 3 herein are the Deputy Director of Education concerned and the State of Kerala, respectively.
2. Heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for R-1 herein/original applicant and Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for R-2 & R-3.
3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application, O.A.No.2826/2016, filed by R-1 herein, before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, are as follows :
(b) To direct the 2nd respondent to advice the applicant in the above said vacancy and to direct the 1st respondent to appoint the applicant as Part-Time Language Teacher (Arabic).
(c) Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”
4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-6 final verdict on 14.01.2020, disposing of O.A.No.2826/2016, with a direction that, R-1 in the O.A. (Deputy Director of Education) will report one vacancy in the post of Part-Time Junior Language Teacher (Arabic) in Pathananamthitta District, specifying the date of occurrence of the said vacancy on a date prior to the expiry of Anx.A-1 rank list and the PSC will advice the applicant as against the said post, taking into account her inclusion in the said rank list as Rank No.1 and thereafter, R-1 (the appointing authority) will issue appointment order to the original applicant. Further that, if there is no vacancy to accommodate the original applicant, then the appointing authority will be at liberty to discharge the original applicant from service, in accordance with law, on the same day as she joins duty. It is this verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-6 that is under challenge at the instance of the Kerala Public Service Commission.
5. The core facts of the case are as follows: The original applicant has participated in the selection process notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection and appointment to the post of Part-Time Junior Language Teacher(Arabic) in Pathanamthitta District, to which she had responded and she has come out successful in the selection process and has been included as Rank No.1 in Anx.A-1 rank list dated 6.11.2013 and that, the said rank list had expired on 5.11.2017, after extension. It is common ground of all the parties that, not even a single candidate was advised from Anx.A-1 rank list, since the appointing authority had not reported a single vacancy to the PSC during the said period. Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure stipulates that, the ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force, provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list, after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. The fourth proviso to Rule 13 provides further that, a ranked list, from which no candidate has been advised during the period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force, shall be kept in force till the expiry of three years from the said date and in a case where
Point of Law : Public Service Commission – A candidate, who is appointed in pursuance of PSC advise memo, who is later thrown out, will have the right to be re-appointed as against vacancies mentione....
Point of Law : Recruitment over and above notified vacancies is not in accordance with constitutional mandate of equal opportunity of unemployment, envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of ....
The authority for vacancy appointments must follow valid ranked lists; vacancies from Leave Preparatory to Retirement are not substantive until actual retirement occurs, impacting recruitment legalit....
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot alter findings of lower tribunals without clear manifest errors, particularly regarding vacancy reporting tied to expired lists.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of equal opportunity for public employment and the interpretation of selection rules in the context of ongoing and continuous re....
NJD vacancies arising after the expiry of a ranked list cannot be filled using the expired list.
The court reinforced that candidates cannot compel filling vacancies from expired ranked lists, affirming appointing authorities' discretion over vacancy reporting under government policy.
The court affirmed that the expiration of a rank list does not negate the right to appointment when vacancies exist, emphasizing the binding nature of prior judgments.
The court upheld the principle that seniority among teachers is to be fixed based on the order of appointment after proper consideration of recruitment rules, confirming the necessity of following pr....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot replace the tribunal's findings unless there is manifest error or injustice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
