Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1550
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION – Appellant
Versus
PREETHA K. – Respondent
OP(KAT) 41/2022
SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC, S M Prasanth K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SUSMITH KUMAR T.D C.A.MAJEED G.RENJITH R.S.ASWINI SANKAR T.H.ARAVIND K.H.ASIF MOLTY MAJEED P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR RUBEN GEORGE ROCK NIRMAL V NAIR(K/000492/2009)T.O.DEEPA(K/180/2008) C.SIVADAS(K/798/2012)
The PSC has exclusive authority to prepare rank lists and must be provided with timely and adequate information on job vacancies to effectively manage appointments.
Headnote:
PublicService - Appointment of Candidates - Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure - Sections 70, 71 - The court emphasized the necessity for timely reporting of vacancies and allowed for a proactive approach in shortlisting candidates, ultimately affirming that the PSC retains discretion in preparing rank lists.
Fact of the Case:
The Kerala Public Service Commission challenged a Tribunal order requiring a reassessment of candidates for a UPSA position due to insufficient inclusion despite reported vacancies, leading to a dispute over the rank list's validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the PSC is competent to determine the size of the shortlist and that the Tribunal's order impeded the PSC's discretion, thus reversing the lower order.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by mandating the PSC to expand the rank list based on unassessed vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that the PSC holds the authority to set criteria and manage candidate lists within its procedural framework, stating that the state's responsibilities include timely reporting of vacancies.
Final Decision: The Tribunal's order is set aside, and the PSC's discretion remains intact.
JUDGMENT
[OP(KAT) Nos.56/2022 & 41/2022]
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
O.P.(KAT).No.56/2022 was filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC). The party respondents were the applicants for the post of UPSA (Malayalam Medium) in the English Department in Kozhikode District. They approached the Tribunal alleging that the rank list and short list prepared by the Commission based on the cut off marks is inadequate as there were sufficient number of vacancies in the district to include a large number of candidates. The Tribunal ordered that PSC shall carry out a proper assessment as to the additional number of candidates to be included in the rank list taking note of the reported vacancies and additional vacancies that had arisen consequent upon promotion. The Tribunal passed this order on 30/11/2021. The list expired on 26/12/2021. PSC challenges this order on the ground that it is purely within their domain to decide the modalities to prepare a rank list. Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure prescribes the mode of selection and number of candidates to be included in the probability list or rank list. It is pointed out that the notification was published in the year 2014 and rank list came into force w.e.f 27/12/2018 and many aspirants by the time would have acquired qualification and PSC cannot be directed to expand the list by defeating the aspiration of subsequently qualified aspirants.
2. A Division Bench of this Court by the judgment in O.P.(KAT).No.441/2020 and connected cases, dated 17/5/2022, in similar circumstances, noted that the PSC is well equipped to take a decision regarding the size of the shortlist of candidates to be called for interview, inclusive of the main list and supplementary list. It is appropriate to refer para.70 and 71 of the above judgment which reads thus:
70. Since the matters relating to verification of available vacancies, sanction of fresh vacancies, sanction of fresh posts and reporting of vacancies are all within the exclusive domain of the State Government/departmental authorities concerned, the State authorities have a duty and responsibility to ensure that a robust and effective system is put in place for such process, including for reporting of vacancies by the appointing authority to the PSC, in an effective and time bound manner and well before the expiry of the ranked list, in cases where the ranked lists are current and also to have an effective arrangement to enable the appointing authorities/departmental authorities to apprise the PSC about, not only the availability of existing vacancies, but also the vacancies that are reasonably expected to arise, at least within the minimum assured life span of one year of the ranked list and the PSC is well equipped to take a decision regarding the size of the shortlist of candidates to be called for interview, inclusive of the main list and supplementary list, etc. Since, ordinarily, time gap between the date on which the PSC has taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist and the date of the finalization of the ranked list would be at least 6 to 10 months and since the minimum assured life span of the ranked list, as per the operative portion of Rule 13 of the PSC Rules of Procedure, is one year, it will be only in the fitness of things that the appointing authorities/ departmental authorities apprise the PSC about not only the actually existing vacancies to be reported but also the vacancies that are reasonably likely to arise within a period of one and a half years or so from the date/month on which the PSC proposes to take decision regarding the size of the shortlist.
71. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are issued:
(i) In order to ensure the above aspects, the competent authority of the State Government should seriously consider these aspects and take steps to constitute a committee of two-three officers of the State Government, two members of the PSC and a few officials of the PSC to ascertain from the
