SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29173

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
AJITH.G.DAS, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
OP(KAT) 298/2023



Advocates:
K.MOHANAKANNAN
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
KALEESWARAM RAJ
CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL
MOLTY MAJEED
C.A.MAJEED(K/000330/1985)
K.H.ASIF(K/478/2007)
P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR(K/445/2012)
RUBEN GEORGE ROCK(K/636/2014)
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

The autonomy of Public Service Commissions in the selection process for public employment and the importance of fair and transparent selection processes ensuring equal opportunity for all aspirants.

Headnote:

Public Service Commissions - Government Recommendation - Autonomy of KPSC - The court held that the Government's recommendation to expand the list cannot be binding on KPSC, maintaining the autonomy of the Public Service Commissions. The court emphasized the importance of fair and transparent selection processes in public employment, ensuring equal opportunity for all aspirants.

Fact of the Case:

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal directed the Government to consider expanding the list of candidates for various posts, leading to a legal question of whether KPSC has to act as per the Government's recommendation or if KAT has the power to direct the Government to consider the expansion of the list.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that KPSC is not bound by the Government's recommendation and emphasized the autonomy of KPSC in the selection process. The court dismissed some petitions and allowed others based on these findings.

Issues: The legal question revolved around the authority to direct the expansion of candidate lists for public employment, specifically in relation to the autonomy of KPSC and the Government's role in the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the independence and autonomous character of Public Service Commissions, highlighting that KPSC is not bound by the Government's recommendation and has the authority to reject it. The court also stressed the importance of fair and transparent selection processes in public employment.

Final Decision: Some petitions were dismissed, while others were allowed based on the court's findings regarding the autonomy of KPSC and the Government's role in the selection process.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top