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 legality.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The 4^th respondent in O.A.No.94 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order dated 27.08.2025 of the Tribunal in that original application, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein- applicant invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A3 appointment chart dated 30.06.2023 for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II in the Kerala State Prosecution Service, issued by the 3^rd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), and the consequential advice and appointment of the 4^th respondent to that post; a declaration that the action of the 1^st respondent State and the 2^nd respondent Director General of Prosecution in reporting a substantive vacancy on the basis of Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) taken by the incumbent for a short period of 22 days is illegal; a declaration that the advice and appointment of the 4^th respondent against the retirement vacancy that arose on 01.06.2023 subsequent to the expiry of Annexure A2 ranked list published with effect from 14.05.2020 is illegal; and an order directing the 3^rd respondent KPSC to advice the applicant to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II against the turn of Hindu Nadar Community. The applicant in O.A.No.94 of 2024 is arrayed as the 1^st respondent and respondents 1 to 3 in that O.A. are arrayed as respondents 2 to 4 in this O.P.(KAT).

2. Along with O.A.No.94 of 2024, the applicant has placed on record Annexures A1 to A10 documents. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent Director General of Prosecution, Ext.P5 reply statement dated 02.08.2024 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for in the O.A., producing therewith Annexure R2(a) document dated 11.05.2023. On behalf of the 3^rd respondent KPSC, Ext.P6 reply statement dated 20.05.2024 was filed. The petitioner herein (4^th respondent in the O.A.) filed Ext.P7 reply statement dated 13.09.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the O.A., producing therewith Annexures R4(a) and R4(b) documents. The 1^st respondent herein (applicant in the O.A.) filed Ext.P8 rejoinder dated 06.11.2024, producing therewith Annexures A11 to A15 documents. The said rejoinder was followed by Ext.P9 additional reply statement dated 23.12.2024 filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

3. After considering the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, the Tribunal, by Ext.P1 order dated 27.08.2025, allowed O.A.No.94 of 2024. Paragraphs 22 to 24 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 order read thus:

“22. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and the judgments, we are of the view that the action of the 1^st respondent in asking the PSC to change the date of occurrence of vacancy, as that of the date from which LPR was sanctioned, and asking the PSC to advise a candidate from the then existed ranked list does not have any statutory backing. The action of the PSC in making advice against such a vacancy, that too when the only proforma received, i.e., Annexure A6, merely