Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50573
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Appellant
Versus
DR. GISHNU.S – Respondent
OP(KAT)/180/2022
S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC, J.JULIAN XAVIER, FIROZ K.ROBIN, NIRMAL KURIEN EAPEN, PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER, V.S MARTIN JOSE, P SMITHA.S.PILLAI, AKASH S., A.MEGHA, P.PRIJITH, THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, R.GITHESH, AJAY BEN JOSE, MANJUNATH MENON, SACHIN JACOB AMBAT, ANNA LINDA V.J, HARIKRISHNAN S., S.SREEKUMAR (SR.), P.K.MANOJKUMAR, M.C.SINY ALICE THOMAS, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GP
The judgment establishes the importance of accurate reporting of vacancies and mandates fresh consideration by administrative bodies to ensure procedural fairness.
Headnote:
Veterinary - Appointment - Kerala Public Service Commission Act - Sections 2, 3 - The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of unreported vacancies, emphasizing the importance of accurate reporting and compliance with statutory timelines.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order regarding unreported vacancies for Veterinary Surgeon positions. They contended that additional vacancies were present that had not been communicated to the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) during the validity of a ranked list.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's determination of additional unreported vacancies was accurate and justified under prevailing regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of re-examining factual assertions based on newly presented documentation and underscored procedural fairness in addressing reported vacancies.
Final Decision: The court remitted the case to the Tribunal for re-evaluation of vacancies, maintaining interim orders.
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar. J.
As all these original petitions involve a common issue and impugn the common order dated 24.3.2022 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) in OA Nos.1876 of 2020 and 1957 of 2020, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.
2. The original applications referred above were filed by candidates who were included in a ranked list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department. The rank list was brought into force on 14.12.2017 and the validity of the ranked list expired on 13.12.2020. The applicants had initially alleged that almost 223 additional vacancies had existed at the time of the expiry of the ranked list and the said vacancies were never reported to the PSC during the currency of the ranked list. The prayer in the original applications was essentially for a direction to the Animal Husbandry Department to report the vacancies to the PSC and to the PSC to effect advises against the said vacancies from the ranked list.
3. It would appear that the Tribunal that considered the original applications, by an interim order dated 10.12.2020, directed 150 vacancies of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II to be reported to the PSC provisionally, pending final disposal of the original applications. During the course of the arguments in the original applications, however, the applicants limited their prayer to 86 vacancies in lieu of 223 vacancies that were initially claimed. The Tribunal, thereafter considered the rival submissions and found that only 62 additional vacancies remained to be reported and the said 62 vacancies had arisen during the currency of Annexure A1 ranked list. It directed the reporting of the said vacancies and issued a further direction to the PSC to effect advises against the said vacancies. The split-up of the 62 vacancies, as comprised of 32 + 30 vacancies, was also noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The 32 vacancies in turn consisted of 18 deputation vacancies and 14 Leave Without Allowance vacancies. The 30 vacancies on the other hand were vacancies that were earlier earmarked for abolition by the Government, but which abolition order was not pursued by the Government as it went ahead and made appointments to the said vacancies, some of which were from the ranked list in force as on the date of consideration of the original applications.
4. The order of the Tribunal has been impugned before us in these original petitions with OP(KAT) No.173 of 2022 being filed by the State against the common order in relation to OA No.1957 of 2020 and OP(KAT)No.180 of 2022 being preferred by the State against the common order in as much as it relates to OA No.1876 of 2020. The other original petitions namely, OP(KAT)Nos.179 of 2022 and 121 of 2022 are filed by the applicants in OA No.1876 of 2020 and the contesting respondents in the said original applications, respectively. In OP(KAT) No.180 of 2022 preferred by the State against the common order of the Tribunal the State relies on Exts.P13, P14 and P15 to contend that, in fact, the 62 unreported vacancies that were found to exist by the Tribunal did not really exist. It is their contention that the 30 vacancies which were abolished by the State Government through a Government Order dated 7.11.2003 could not be filled up thereafter in theory, but as a matter of fact the Government had actually filled up the said posts in anticipation of a subsequent sanction from the government for filling up those posts. It is further submitted that in anticipation of the sanctioning of those posts which were abolished in 2003, 22 persons from an earlier ranked list and 7 persons from Annexure A1 ranked list had been appointed to against the said 30 anticipated vacancies. As regards the 18 deputation vacancies that were found to exist by the Tribunal it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Bijo
