IMPORTANT POINT
State or any public agency, cannot be precluded from challenging a judgment on the ground that it approaches this court, filing an appeal against only one party – Even if in that case, normative basis of judgment under appeal is disturbed and issue concerns a matter having public ramifications, final judgment would bind all concerned.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals were heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant (hereafter referred to as the “Director”) is aggrieved by the impugned final judgment and order dated 24.07.2019¹ [R.P. No. 657/2019, R.P. No. 659/2019, R.P. No. 660/2019, O.P. (KAT) No. 286/2019 and O.P. (KAT) No. 287/2019] as well as orders dated 02.07.2019² [O.P. (KAT) No. 256/2019] and 19.06.2019 ³ [O.P. (KAT) No. 17/2019 and O.P. (KAT) No. 24/2019] passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

4. The Director had filed petitions challenging orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the “KAT”) which had required the reporting of 28 vacancies in the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda), Assistant Insurance Officer in the Department of Indian System of Medicine (hereafter referred to as the “posts”).

5. The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as the “KPSC”) issued a notification on 19.11.2014 eliciting applications from amongst eligible candidates for the posts. The first respondent along with several others applied for these posts. These candidates were included in the ranked list published on 19.11.2014. In accordance with the rules governing KPSC, the Department in question i.e. Indian System of Medicine and Insurance Medical Service (hereafter referred to as the “department”) - had to report vacancies for the duration in which the list was operative. According to the procedure prescribed by those rules, vacancies had to be notified and candidates advised, after which they were to be appointed. On 14.11.2017 the first respondent and others (hereafter referred to as the “applicants”) preferred proceedings under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the KAT⁴ [O.A. No. 2816/2017]. The applicants sought the direction to the department to report 65 vacancies of the posts to KPSC before the list was to expire i.e. on or before 18.11.2017. An interim application seeking a direction to advice 28 vacancies remaining to be reported to the KPSC, was sought. The interim order was granted on 14.11.2017. Like the respondent in this case, other applicants also moved the KAT with different applications. These were considered and disposed of on 03.08.2018. The KAT took into consideration the pleadings and material before it, as well as the contentions urged. It was contended that about 33 anticipated vacancies were reported on 08.11.2017 and 28 provisional vacancies also needed to be reported which was taken care of by the interim order dated 14.11.2017. The KAT accepted an argument on behalf of the applicants that by a promotion order dated 20.06.2017, eligible Medical Officers (Ayurveda) were promoted as Senior Medical Officers, as a result of which 28 vacancies arose which had to be reported. In addition, the KAT also noted 15 other vacancies had to be treated as additional (over and above the 28 vacancies reported in terms of its interim order) and that the KPSC was bound to select candidates as against those vacancies.

6. The Department felt aggrieved and approached the Kerala High Court by filing O.P. (KAT) No. 256/2019. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 02.07.2019, holding that it had been filed belatedly.

7. As far as the other petitions filed by the department were concerned, the High Court took note of the fact that in some cases Review Petitions were filed and after their dismissal Writ Petitions were preferred before it, and in some⁵ [O.A. No. 2342/2017, 2212/2017, 2612/2017 and 2631/2017] the orders remained unchallenged. As a consequence, the High Court held that the finality of the Tribunal’s order bound the department and consequently it could not maintain the Writ Petitions which were dismissed.

8. It is firstly urged by Mr. Pallav Sisodia, senior counsel on behalf of the Director, that the High Court erred in rejecting the De