Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, – Appellant
Versus
KUMARI SUNITHA V, – Respondent
OP(KAT) 348/2023
The autonomy of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) and its authority to reject the Government's recommendation.
Headnote:
Public Service Commissions - Government Recommendation - Autonomy of KPSC - The court held that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) is not bound by the recommendation of the Government and has the authority to reject it. The court emphasized the autonomous character of KPSC and stated that neither the Government nor the Tribunal has the power to direct KPSC to expand the list beyond the directions given in a previous judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) directed the Government to consider expanding the list of candidates for various posts due to a large number of vacancies. The Government acted on the direction in some cases, but the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) did not accept the Government's recommendation, leading to legal challenges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that KPSC has the authority to reject the Government's recommendation and maintain its autonomous character throughout the selection process. It held that neither the Government nor the Tribunal has the power to direct KPSC to expand the list beyond the directions given in a previous judgment.
Issues: The legal question was 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.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the autonomous character of KPSC and stated that neither the Government nor the Tribunal has the power to direct KPSC to expand the list beyond the directions given in a previous judgment.
Final Decision: O.P.(KAT).Nos.298/2023 and 311/2023 were dismissed, while O.P.(KAT).Nos.348/2023 & 399/2023 were 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.
