IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that filling up vacancies beyond the specified number in the notification was not illegal, as per Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. The petitioner is the applicant in O.A. No. 487 of 2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Thiruvananthapuram. He is challenging the final order dated 9.2.2023 passed by the KAT by which the original application was dismissed.

2. The issue involved in the case relates to the transfer/recruitment from in-service candidates to the post of Range Forest Officers in the Forest and Wildlife Department. In the O.A. the petitioner stated that he is working as Beat Forest Officer. He joined duty on 20.10.2011. As on the date of filing the O.A. the petitioner was aged 34 years and claimed to have qualifying service of 9 years, 4 months and 16 days.

3. By Annexure-A4 notification dated 30.8.2016 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) seven vacancies of Range Forest Officers were notified for recruitment by transfer from Forest Officers, namely, Wildlife Assistant, Deputy Ranger, Forester and Beat Forest Officer. It has been clearly stated in the notification that the number of vacancies mentioned are provisional, subject to change according to the allotment of seats by the Director of Forestry Education, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Government of India and due to arising of more vacancies. A note below the column showing the number of vacancies is included which is re-produced hereunder:

“Note: The Ranked List of candidates published by the Kerala Public Service Commission in pursuance of this notification shall cease to be in force after one month from the date of commencement of training (Forest Range Officers Course) or 3 months from the date of coming into force of the ranked list whichever is later.”

4. The Special Rule for the Kerala Forest service prescribes the qualification for appointment to the post of Range Forest Officer by transfer. As shown in Annexure-A4, for seeking appointment by transfer, the candidate should have minimum 5 years service in the feeder category post. The maximum age limit stipulated is 40.

5. The petitioner admittedly had not completed 5 years service in the feeder category when Annexure-A4 was issued. Therefore, he was not eligible to apply for appointment when the recruitment process commenced pursuant to Annexure-A4 notification. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 487/2021 before the KAT in July, 2021 after Annexure-A6 ranked list came into force on 28.1.2021. Thus, it clearly emerges that the petitioner was not eligible to take part in the selection process pursuant to Annexure-A4 and that he raised no challenge against Annexure-A4 till the process was completed and the ranked list came into force. It is also to be noted that, though the ranked list came into force on 28.1.2021, the O.A. was filed much later in July, 2021. It is pertinent to note that the short list was published much earlier, on 02.11.2017.

6. The following reliefs are sought in the OA:

“(i) To declare that the provision in Annexure A4 notification that the seven notified vacancies are provisional and subject to change due to arising of more vacancies is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) To direct the 3rd respondent to fill up only seven vacancies notified in Annexure A4 notification from Annexure A6 rank list and to issue fresh notification for all the vacancies set apart and reported for by Transfer recruitment after Annexure A4 notification in accordance with Rule 13 of Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure.

(ii)(a) To set aside the appointment of respondents 6 to 35 as Range Forest Officers from Annexure A6 rank list.

(iii) Issue such other directions or orders as this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

7. The Government, PSC and the party respondents filed separate reply statements in the O.A. In the reply statement of the Department it was contended that the O.A. has been filed without proper understanding of the Rules and Procedures followed by the PSC and