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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
Ajith.G.Das, S/o. D.Gnanadas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
O.P.(KAT).Nos.298 of 2023, 311 of 2023, 348 of 2023 & 399 of 2023
Decided on : 14-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.MOHANAKANNAN, H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA), KALEESWARAM RAJ, CHINNU MARIA ANTONY, THULASI K. RAJ
For the Respondent: SMT.VINITHA B., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, MOLTY MAJEED, C.A.MAJEED(K/000330/1985), K.H.ASIF(K/478/2007), P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR(K/445/2012), RUBEN GEORGE ROCK(K/636/2014), SMT.VINITHA B., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

The autonomy and independence of Public Service Commissions in the selection process, and the authority of the Government to make recommendations to KPSC without binding KPSC to accept such recommendations.

Headnote:

KPSC - Legality of Expanding Rank List - Article 320, Section 3(2) of Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional functions as Respects the Services under local Authority) Act 1973 - The court discussed the constitutional provisions and the autonomy of Public Service Commissions, emphasizing the independence of KPSC in the selection process. It highlighted the authority of the Government to make recommendations to KPSC but clarified that KPSC is not bound by such recommendations. The judgment also referenced previous court decisions and directions regarding the preparation of shortlists and the reporting of vacancies to KPSC, concluding that no authority, including the Tribunal or the Court, can direct KPSC to expand the list beyond the stipulated process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions questioned the legality of the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) to expand the short list of candidates prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the authority of the Government to recommend KPSC to expand the list. The cases involved applicants for various posts who approached KAT aggrieved by the decision of KPSC not to accept Government recommendation for expansion of the rank list.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that KPSC has the authority to reject the recommendation of the Government and maintain its autonomous character throughout the selection process. It emphasized that no authority, including the Tribunal or the Court, can direct KPSC to expand the list beyond the stipulated process.

Issues: The legality of the order to expand the short list, the authority of the Government to recommend KPSC to expand the list, and the autonomy of KPSC in the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The autonomy and independence of KPSC in the selection process, the authority of the Government to make recommendations to KPSC, and the stipulated process for reporting vacancies and preparing shortlists as directed by previous court decisions.

Final Decision: O.P.(KAT).Nos.298/2023 and 311/2023 are dismissed. O.P.(KAT).Nos.348/2023 & 399/2023 are allowed.

JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These original petitions raise a question as to the legality of the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) to expand the short list of the candidates prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), and questions the authority of the Government to recommend KPSC to expand the list. These matters came from different proceedings; however, in view of the common issue, the same are disposed of by a common judgment. We shall advert to the facts of each case:

2(i). O.P.(KAT).No.298/23: This original petition was filed by applicants 2 to 4 in O.A.No.893/2023 on the file of KAT. They were applicants to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Municipal Common Service in Malappuram District vide notification dated 29/5/2015. The notification was issued in the year 2015. They approached KAT aggrieved by the decision of KPSC not to accept Government recommendation for expansion of the rank list. KAT negatived the challenge.

2(ii). O.P.(KAT).No.311/2023: This original petition was filed by the applicants in O.A.No.878/23 on the file of KAT. They sought expansion of the rank list for the Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Municipal Common Service in Thrissur District vide notification dated 29/5/2015. Their challenge was negatived.

2(iii). O.P.(KAT).No.348/2023: This original petition was filed by KPSC. KPSC challenges an order of KAT in O.A.No.2389/2021 directing the Government to take a decision on expanding list with a further direction to KPSC to take action on the recommendation of the Government. This was in respect of post of Full Time Junior Language teacher in Hindi pursuant to the notification dated 18/8/2017 issued by KPSC.

2(iv). O.P.(KAT).No.399/2023: The petitioner is KPSC. It challenges an order of KAT in O.A.No.31/2021. KAT directed the Government to consider expansion of the short list and further directed KPSC to act on such recommendation in respect of the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanic Refrigeration and Air Conditioning) vide notification dated 28/2/2017.

3. We need not labour much on the facts of each case as the same is evident from the impugned orders itself. KAT directed the Government to consider expansion of the list as it felt that a large number of vacancies exist and there were no sufficient candidates in the rank list and, therefore, the Government will have to address such grievance of the candidates for expansion of the select list. The Government, in fact, acted on the direction of KAT in respect of Selection to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. But the Government recommendation was not accepted by KPSC. That challenge against the decision of KPSC was also negatived by the Tribunal. Therefore, the legal question to be answered by this Court is whether KPSC has to act as per the recommendation by the Government or does KAT have the power to direct the Government to consider the expansion of the list. To understand this issue, we need to understand the constitutional provisions and arguments raised at Bar.

4. Our Constitution makers understood the importance of public employment and aimed to provide institutional mechanisms ensuring credible and transparent procedures for recruiting eligible candidates in accordance with law.

5. It is the duty of the constitutional bound State to ensure fair distribution of assets and office. The idea of justice as referred in the Preamble; the solemn resolution to make India sovereign, socialist, democratic, republic as envisaged in the Constitution. The Constitution affirms justice - social, economic and political. This idea of governance is to ensure justice to all citizens giving them equal opportunity to aspire for wealth and office. The first step is to achieve this goal in the matter of public environment. Our Constitution makers ensured through institutionalisation of selection process by mandating constitution of Union and State Public Service Commissions under Article 320 of the Constitution

          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