Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13330
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION – Appellant
Versus
TISMA THOMAS K – Respondent
OP(KAT) 356/2020
The Public Service Commission must assess vacancies reasonably when determining the size of shortlists, but courts should not interfere unless there is gross illegality or unreasonableness.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 - Kerala Administrative Tribunal - Common final order challenged regarding the size of the shortlist for Lower Primary School Assistant posts in 7 districts - Tribunal found PSC did not assess vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the ranked list - PSC directed to expand the shortlist based on factual assessments. (Paras 1, 61, 62)
(B) Public Service Commission - Norms for shortlisting candidates - PSC Circular No.30/2003 - Size of shortlist not to be decided mechanically; must consider vacancies reported, candidates advised from previous lists, and nature of posts. (Paras 18, 44)
(C) Judicial Review - Limitations on interference - Courts should not micro-manage PSC functions unless there is gross illegality or unreasonableness. (Paras 60, 62)
Facts of the case:
The PSC issued a selection notification for LPSA posts in Kerala, with challenges regarding the shortlist size in 7 districts. The Tribunal concluded that the PSC failed to assess future vacancies adequately, leading to a directive for expansion.
Findings of Court:
The PSC's decision-making process was upheld, emphasizing that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of vacancy likelihood.
Issues: Whether the PSC's shortlist size was reasonable and compliant with established norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The PSC's assessment of vacancies was deemed adequate, and the Tribunal's directive for expansion was found to be flawed.
Result: The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the PSC's shortlist was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The common final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on 24.08.2020 in the aforementioned 28 original applications, is the subject matter of challenge in these original petitions, filed at the instance of the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSC’ for short) and its officers, who were arrayed as respondents in the original application, by invoking the remedy conferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The applicants in the aforementioned 28 original applications are candidates who have applied for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) (Malayalam medium) in Government schools (Category No.387/2014) in 7 out of the 14 districts in the State of Kerala. The 7 districts involved in these cases are (i) Kannur (ii) Kasargod (iii) Kollam (iv) Malappuram (v) Kozhikode (vi) Thrissur and (vii) Palakkad. The common selection notification dated 10.09.2014 was issued by the PSC (Category No.387/2014) for selection to the post of LPSA (Malayalam medium) in Government schools in all the 14 districts in the State of Kerala and the last date for submission of applications in that regard was upto 15.10.2014. The challenge made in these original applications is regarding the reasonableness or otherwise of the size of the short list published by the PSC in the selection process pertaining to the abovesaid 7 districts. It appears that, in these proceedings, no challenge has been made as against a similar action taken by the PSC for finalisation of short lists in the other 7 districts.
2. The Tribunal has referred to the brief factual aspects of the case, like the number of vacancies reported by the appointing authority to the PSC, prior to the decision taken by the PSC, the size of the select list, various vacancies reported thereafter, details of the candidates included in the short list, pertaining to the 7 districts, with reference to the service details of such candidates included in the main list thereof and the supplementary list thereof, etc., as well as the cited decisions, including the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB) = 2009 (2) KHC 10 = ILR 2009 (2) Ker. 751], Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417] Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLT 854], State of Punjab & Others v. Manjit Singh & Others [AIR 2003 SC 4580]. Thereafter, the Tribunal has concluded that the cut off marks was not a criteria followed by the PSC for deciding the number of candidates to be included in the short list and the list. However, the Tribunal has noted in para 61 thereof that in the norms followed by the PSC, as per PSC Circular No.30/2003 dated 01.12.2003, one of the important criteria is that, the number of vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the list should also be assessed. That, from the pleadings and materials on records, it appears that such an assessment has not been made by the PSC and that therefore, there will be a direction to the PSC to pass appropriate orders regarding the expansion of the list, after considering the factual aspects noted about each of the 7 districts, orders in that regard shall be passed in 2 months and additional eligible candidates will be advised for appointment based on the order to be passed, within 2 months thereafter, etc. It is the abovesaid common verdict, rendered by the Tribunal in these original applications, that is under challenge in these original petitions, filed at the behest of the PSC and its officers.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the various learned Advocates appearing for the original applicants, who had succeeded before the Tribunal and who have been arrayed as contesting respondents in these original petitions and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
4. The district wise details of these 28 cases would be as follows:-
O.P.(KAT) No.441/2020 (arising out of
