Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37968
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
AFSAL V – Appellant
Versus
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C)/12378/2022
S.SABARINADH, INDULEKHA JOSEPH, P.C SASIDHARAN
The Kerala Public Service Commission retains discretion in determining the size of rank lists and assessing vacancies, unimpeded by subsequent increases in vacancies post-selection.
Headnote:
Writ - Appointment - Kerala Public Service Commission - 14.1.2020 Rank List - Court ruled no expansion of list needed as Commission assessed vacancy availability adequately.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners included in the supplementary list for Last Grade Servants contested the inadequate size of the main rank list, asserting their right to appointments given the vacancies available and the potential for non-joining candidates from the main list.
Issues: Whether the main list of candidates prepared by the PSC should be expanded to include supplementary list candidates given the available vacancies and claims of frustration of opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the PSC has discretion over the size of the rank list based on reported vacancies. An increase in vacancies post-selection does not necessitate a larger main list.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the PSC's decisions were found appropriate.
JUDGMENT
1.This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
“1. Direct respondent to enlarge the Main List of the Rank List No.12/2020/ER-IV-B dated 14.01.2020 (Exhibit P1) published by the PSC for making appointments to the post of Last Grade Servants (Category No. 113/2017) in various Government owned Companies, Corporations and Boards, within a timeframe to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; or in the alternative.
2.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent to bring Exhibit P5 representation to a logical conclusion, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners, within a timeframe to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court at any rate before the exhaustion of the Main List of Exhibit P1 Rank List.”
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners are the rank holders included in the supplementary list of Exhibit P1 ranked list prepared for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servants in various Government owned companies, Corporations and Boards. It is contended that the PSC failed to prepare a short list having sufficient number of candidates and therefore the right of the petitioners, who are included in the supplementary list, for getting advice and appointment from the list was frustrated. It is submitted that since there were 2788 vacancies available against which advise was made from the previous ranked list, the PSC ought to have prepared a main list consisting of between 5576 to 8364 persons and that the main list in Exhibit P1 which contains only 3207 candidates is liable to be expanded. It is submitted that several advices had been made from the main list and the validity of the list will expire only in January 2023. However, due to the fact that the persons included in the main list have been advised, the petitioners' chance to get appointment from the supplementary list also is frustrated. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the non-joining vacancies from out of the advices already made from Exhibit P1 ranked list are to be filled up from the said ranked list itself, notwithstanding the exhaustion of the main list which was a shortened list. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ranked list prior to Exhibit P1 was published in the year 2014 and the list before that on 3.7.2006. It is, therefore, contended that there will typically be a gap of 6 to 8 years in the preparation and publication of the next ranked list and that the petitioners will become overaged by then. It is, therefore, contended that the main list of Exhibit P1 is liable to be expanded and all the persons included in the supplementary list are liable to be included in the main list so as to make it possible to make further advises from the list.
4. The learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of a Full Bench of this Court inRavidas M and another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others [ 2009 (2) KLT 295 ] and of the Apex Court inAshok Kumar Yadav and others v.
State of Haryana and others [ (1985) 4 SCC 417 ] .
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is submitted that the Commission had invited applications for Last Grade Servants in various Companies/Board/Corporations by notification in the Gazette dated 30.5.2017 and conducted OMR test on 7.10.2017 and 28.10.2017 and published a probability list of 3684 candidates in the main list and 7560 candidates in the supplementary lists and 270 candidates in the lists of differently abled categories. After conducting one-time verification and cycling test, the Commission published the ranked list on 14.1.2020 in which 3207 candidates were included in the main list, 6157 candidates in the supplementary list of various reservation communities and 251 candidates in the lists of differently abled categories. It is submitted that the petiti
