Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25168
ALEXANDER THOMAS, A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT – Appellant
Versus
ABHILASH .C – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 189 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, C.A.MAJEED, ROOPKUMAR G., JOHN K.J.
For the Respondents: SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
Due process must be followed in validating qualifications for public service appointments, ensuring adherence to laws and appropriate jurisdictional protocols.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The original petition filed by the State of Kerala seeks to stay orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal that direct a candidate to join duty despite qualification concerns relating to required competency certificates. Key legal principles involve the validity of qualifications set forth under the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010 as opposed to state regulations.
(B) The Court addressed issues concerning the qualifications necessary for boat drivers, emphasizing the importance of observing lawful protocols established by the Public Service Commission.
(C) Findings of the court highlighted that the candidate's existing competency certificate did not meet the mandatory requirements following the Inland Vessels Rules, necessitating clarification from the PSC.
(D)
Issues: The central focus was determining qualification validity and whether the applicant could be permitted to join duty based on the lack of a valid engine driver's competency. (E) The Ratio Decidendi expressed that compliance with due process in issuing advice memos from the PSC is mandatory, and roles and authority of the state department must align with established conventions. (F)
Result: The original petition was disposed of with directed resolutions regarding the candidate's qualifications and necessary actions for remittance back to the Tribunal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. original petition seeks to stay orders of the kerala administrative tribunal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the original applicant's claims and qualifications are presented. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on qualifications and adherence to the relevant laws. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. the court emphasizes the need for due process and clarity from the psc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. final decision directs resolution of applicant's qualification queries. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayer in the afore-captioned original peition filed by the State of Kerala and the Director of Water Transport Department (R1 and R2 in the OA) filed under
"For these and other reasons stated in the memorandum of Original Petition (KAT), it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of Ext.P2 order dated 237.2021 in OA (EKM)No.999/2021 and Ext.P10 order dated 29.7.2021 in CP(EKM)NO.90/2021 in OA (EKM) No.999/2021 on the file of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench Ernakulam pending disposal of the above original petition."
2. The prayers in the present OA (EKM)No.999/2021 filed by the 1st respondent herein (original applicant) before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam are as follows:
i) to declare that the 2nd respondent act of not permitting to join duty and referring to PSC seeking further clarification as to the qualifications, already verified by the PSC with a new rider that the license that is considered for appointment shall be as per the Kerala Inland Vessels Rule 2010 is not sustainable as it is vitiated with malafides and ill motives;
ii) to issue an order or direction to the 2nd respondent to fouth with permit the applicant to join duty as on 26.2.2021, the date of his reporting with the requisite documents strictly in accordance with law and based on the relevant provisions of KS & SSR.
Iii) to isse such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has passed Ext.P2 interim order dated 23.7.2021 in the above OA, the operative portion of which contained in the last Para. thereof, which reads as follows (see Page 36 of the paper book of the OP):
'In so far as the applicant is issued with advice memo dated 18.1.2021 pursuant to his inclusion in the ranked list dated 4.4.2018 and was also issued with Annexure A6 appointment order dated 16.2.2021, any further delay would work out to injustice to the applicant who has undergone a selection process and was availing an employment for more than 3 years. The second respondent is therefore directed to permit the applicant to join service on the applicant being present before the office of the second respondent with a copy of this order during office hours on 28.7.2021.
4. Later, for the alleged non-compliance of the interim order contained in Ext.P2, the original applicant has preferred contempt petition CP(EKM)No.90/2021 arising out of the above OA, in which the Tribunal has passed Ext.P10 interim order dated 29.7.2021, the operative portion of which has given in Para.No.4 thereof, which reads as follows:
'Though we are inclined to initiate coercive action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, the fervent plea made by the learned Government Pleader dissuades us from taking such action. The respondents will ensure that the petitioner is permitted to join duty forthwith by 30th July, 2021, failing which respondents 1 and 2 shall be personally present before this Tribunal and show cause as to why further proceedings should not be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience and disregard to the directions in Annexure P1 order.'
5. Heard Sri Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in
