Back
HARISANKAR V. MENON
Shani S. V. – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Public Service Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
The petitioner, who unfortunately missed the bus with respect to appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II in the 2nd respondent Corporation, is before this Court challenging Ext.P8 proceeding issued by the 1st respondent.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:
The 1st respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'the Public Service Commission') invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II in the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner applied thereunder. Ext.P1 is issued by the 1st respondent Public Service Commission, directing the petitioner to appear for verification of her certificates for shortlisting. It is pointed out by the petitioner in this writ petition that Ext.P1 was served on the petitioner and she appeared in response to that. Ext.P2 is the ranked list prepared after verification of the certificates by the 2nd respondent, wherein the petitioner was figured at Sl.No.31 in the Muslim quota. This was followed by Ext.P3 appointment chart, with respect to those who have been selected for appointment, in which the petitioner was included at Sl. No.14. On the basi
The applicant is responsible for providing accurate personal information in appointment applications; failure to do so negates claims of non-service of appointment notices.
Point of Law : Rule 13 of Kerala Public Service Commission Rules stipulates that ranked lists published by Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from date on which it was brought ....
Judicial flexibility may be exercised in exceptional cases to uphold social justice, especially for underprivileged individuals seeking employment.
The court emphasized that strict compliance with the rules is necessary, but when a candidate complies with the requirements, the benefit should be availed by the candidate next in the order of merit....
The inaction of the government in not appointing candidates from the waiting list without justifiable reasons is arbitrary, bad in law, and illegal.
Appointments cannot be mandated if the appointing authority has valid reasons to not fill positions, even after directions, and must adhere to administrative regulations regarding vacancies.
Inaction by the respondents in issuing appointment orders despite a candidate securing the top rank raises legitimate expectations for prompt action.
Point of Law : It is open for the authority concerned not to fill up vacancies but such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Candidates are entitled to consideration for available posts if a vacancy arises during the validity of the selection list despite administrative delays.
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
