JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

Ext.P4 final order dated 10.06.2020, rendered by the Tribunal in the instant O.A. No.1490/2018, is under challenge in the present original petition, filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The sole petitioner in the original petition is the sole applicant in the original application. The respondents herein are the respondents in the original application.

3. The prayers in the instant original petition are as follows:-

“i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P4 and quash the same;

ii. Allow Exhibit P1 OA No.1490 of 2019 as prayed for;

iii. Allow such other and further reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Heard Sri.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P./applicant in the O.A., Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, appearing for R1 & R4 in the O.P./R1 & R4 in the O.A. and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for R2 &

R3 in the O.P./R2 & R3 in the O.A.

5. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A.

No.1490/2018, filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, are as follows:-

“1. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A12 order and set aside the same as much as it affects the applicant and direct the respondent to advice the applicant from Annexure A1 ranked list against the vacancies reported as per Annexure A3, since it is reported as per Annexure A2 order of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

2. Any other further relief or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

3. Award the cost of these proceedings.”

6. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P4 verdict on 10.06.2020 in the above O.A., wherein it has been held that no interference is called for on the impugned action of the 1st & 4th respondents in the O.A. in working out of the rotation as against the vacancies reported to the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) in Survey and Land Records Department, covered by Anx.A1 rank list dated 31.12.2012.

7. The petitioner in the original petition will be referred, for convenience, as ‘the original applicant/applicant’ and the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission will be referred, for convenience, as ‘the PSC’.

8. A reference to the factual details of the case would be pertinent.

9. The applicant had taken part in the selection process for the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) in the Survey and Land Records Department, notified as category No.113/2008 and after due process of selection, she was duly included in Anx.A1 rank list dated 31.12.2012, for the said post, as rank No.10 in the supplementary list for Muslims.

10. It is common ground that Anx.A1 rank list had remained valid upto 31.12.2016. Further, pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal in another case O.A.(Ekm) No.2100/2016, 2 substantive vacancies were reported by the appointing authority as per Anx.A3 letter dated 31.12.2016. There is no dispute that the said vacancy requisition report, as against 2 substantive vacancies, had reached the PSC on 31.12.2016., i.e., before the expiry of Anx.A1 rank list. Later, the PSC had noticed that there was a defect in the said vacancy requisition report inasmuch as the same was not signed by the appointing authority. Hence, the PSC had returned back the said vacancy requisition report, for curing the defect, as per Anx.A4 letter dated 06.01.2017 and the appointing authority had returned the same, after curing the defects, by Anx.A5 letter dated 21.01.2017. Later, the PSC had noted that there was yet another defect in the vacancy requisition report inasmuch as the date of occurrence of the 2 substantive vacancies, covered by Anx.A3, was not mentioned therein and there was only description that those vacancies have arisen upto 31.12.2016. Hence, the PSC authorities again instructed the