SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
DR. REKHA P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 322 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL
For the Respondents: SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P, SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

KPSC's authority to manage community reservations and adjust turns is upheld, with the court confirming that adjustments must be aligned with statutory provisions to preserve equitable representation.

Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Power of superintendence - Challenge against authority of KPSC to convert reserved turns - No illegality found in KPSC's action to compensate lost turns as per the provisions of Rule 15 of KS&SSR - Tribunal upheld decision, finding it in accordance with the law and not arbitrary. (Paras 8, 12, 19)

(B) Administrative procedure - Interpretation of rules - The intent behind the Note to Rule 15(a) was to ensure that no community suffers loss in appointments due to prior arrangements, while ensuring that lost turns are restored to proper communities upon their availability. (Paras 3, 5, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the KPSC's conversion of a reserved turn for Ezhava/Billava/Thiyya communities to that for the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian community, despite being eligible for the post as per the ranked list. The Tribunal dismissed her application, validating the KPSC's decision as per the applicable rules.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's findings were deemed correct, with no basis for intervention under Article 227, establishing that the KPSC's actions were justified and not contrary to the rules.

Issues: The primary legal issue was whether the KPSC's actions in converting the reserved community turn were legal and in accordance with the KS&SSR provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in the absence of suitable candidates from a community, KPSC's authority to maintain fairness in the appointment process is critical, and adjustments can be made without compromising community presence in reserved turns.

Result: Original petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge against kpsc's order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the application and reasons for kpsc's action. (Para 3 , 4)
3. tribunal's rationale for dismissing the challenge. (Para 6)
4. legal principles governing reservation and adjustment of turns. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. court's observations regarding its supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. final assessment and adherence to statutory provisions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. conclusion of the court on the legality of the tribunal's order. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A. (EKM)No.411 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner filed O.A. (EKM) No.411 of 2025 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Call for the records leading to Annexure A5 Appointment Chart; Set aside the same;

b. Declare that the 2nd respondent does not have the authority to convert a Turn reserved for the E/B/T community as per the Annexure to KS&SSR roster to a reservation for LC/AI community when a suitable candidate belonging to the E/B/T community is available in the Annexure A2 ranked list;

c. Declare that the 2nd respondent does not have the authority to convert a Turn reserved for the E/B/T community as per the Annexure to KS & SSR roster to a reservation for LC/AI community when a suitable candidate belonging to LC/AI community is not available in the Annexure A2 ranked list;

d. Declare that MR1- Turn 28 in the post of Medical Officer (Marma) in the Indian Systems of Medicine Department is entitled to the E/B/T community on the basis of Rule 15 of the KS & SSR;

e. Direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the applicant to MR1- Turn 28 in the post of Medical Officer (Marma) in the Indian Systems of Medicine Department forthwith”.

3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioner is included in the ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short) to the post of Medical Officer (Marma). The petitioner belongs to the Thiyya community. Turn 28 in the reservation roster as per Annexure of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (‘KS&SSR’ for short) part II, belongs to the Ezhava/Billava/Thiyya communities and thus, on the basis of the ranked list, she is entitled to be appointed to that Turn. However, the KPSC, through Annexure A5 appointment chart, arbitrarily converted that turn to the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian community, stating that it is used to compensate the LC/AI community for an E/B/T candidate appointed on 05.04.1995 to a turn reserved for LC/AI candidates, as per the pre-amended Rule 15 of the KS&SSR. Annexure A5 further states that since there are no LC/AI candidates available in the ranked list, the vacancy is kept unfilled for the NCA Notification for LC/AI. The above action of the KPSC denying appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires, since, as per the amended Rule 15 (a) of the KS & SSR part II, a vacancy attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates belonging to the community to whom the turn belongs. The Note to Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR part II permitting compensating uncompensated turns as on 02.02.2006, read with the main provision, clarifies that such compensation can be effected only in the absence of candidates despite following the steps outlined in Rule 15(a).

4. In the original application, the 2nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 19.05.2025 opposing the reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 26.05.2025. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by the impugned Ext.P5 order dated 28.05.2025 dismissed the origin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top