Kerala High Court
Praveen Kumar K.P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 4 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 7348 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
PRAVEEN KUMAR K.P.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.C.V.BALAKRISHNAN, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PRANAVAM,
MATHUKKOTH P.O., VARAM, KANNUR-670594.
BY ADV SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARAGOD, TIGER
HILLS, BUILDING NO.KMC XII-38-D, MUNICIPAL ROAD,
PULIKUNNU, KASARAGOD-671121.
3 BENNY SEBASTIAN,
ARAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685587.
4 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
P.B.NO.6151, COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2021, THE COURT ON 4/8/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.7348/2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is ranked number 4 in the rank list of PSC for the post of
Deputy General Manager, in the District Cooperative Bank, Kasargod,
published on 12/7/2018. Since 1st and 2nd rank holders did not join duty
successively, vacancies were reported as NJD. 2nd NJD vacancy was
reported belatedly on 3/12/2020. In the meanwhile, the District Co-operative
Bank was merged with State Co-operative Bank, to form Kerala Bank. In spite
of reporting of NJD, respondents 1 and 2 have not advised 3 rd respondent, the
third rank holder, to join. He is stated to have given Ext.P7 relinquishment
letter, since he got employed elsewhere. Rank list is to expire on 4/8/2021.
Petitioner hence sought issuance of advice memo to the petitioner.
2 . Vehemently opposing the original petition, the stand taken by the
learned Standing Counsel for PSC was that, with the constitution of the Kerala
Bank, the earlier rank list have ceased to exist and no appointments have
been made from such rank lists till now.
3. This court by an interim order dated 9/7/2021 directed the first
respondent to issue advise memo to the third respondent within a period of
five days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. At the time of
hearing of the writ petition, both sides submitted that the interim order dated
9/7/2021 was under challenge in a writ appeal and the learned Division
Bench had stayed the operation of the above interim direction.
4. PSC has filed a detailed counter affidavit traversing the various
claims of the petitioner and contending that the respondent had not and
cannot issue advice to the candidates who are included in the rank list of
District Cooperative Bank, after amalgamation of the Bank. It was also
contended that by virtue of the constitution of the bank, a new entity has come
into existence and the vacancies cannot be filled up by the State Co operative
Bank after it has statutorily been brought into operation, from the rank list of
the District Co-operative Bank .
5. A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner. It was contended that
the stand of the PSC that they had not and cannot make advise to the
candidates who are included in the rank list of the District Co operative bank
after amalgamation of the bank was factually incorrect. It was asserted that
contrary to what was stated in the affidavit, the very same respondent had
issued advice memos to the candidates who are included in the ranked list of
peons/watchman in District Co-operative Bank, Kozhikode District(Category
No.649/2017) in the NJD vacancies on 24/12/2019i.e.much after the date of
amalgamation. It was stated that the NJD vacancies were reported on
19/12/2019 and the advice memos were issued thereafter. A copy of the rank
list as well as the appointment charts to the above post were produced as
Ext.P8. It was also stated by the petitioner that the above act of the
respondent PSC is wrong in the light of the fact that the PSC had issued
advice memo to the 2nd rank holder on 12/12/2019 and in pursuance to the
same, interim board as per resolution No.63 had resolved to appoint the
advised candidate even after amalgamation. It was also asserted that the
second respondent had issued advise memo to the candidate even after
amalgamation and the 4th respondent has reported NJD vacancy to the
commission on 2/12/2020. In spite of this, it was alleged that, the second
respondent was taking fierce measures by not making advise to the 3 rd
respondent society and thereby denying a valuable chance to the petitioner.
6. Yet another contention advanced by the petitioner was that Rule
185(3) (1) of KCS Rules which deals with the appointment of Deputy General
Manager has not so far been amended or deleted by the new Act 1 of 2019.
Hence the recruitment to the post still holds good., it was argued.
7. Though the above factual assertion on the basis of Ext.P8 was not
denied by the PSC, learned standing counsel tried to sideline the above
specific assertion by an unsustainable contention that factual assertions so
made in the reply affidavit cannot be treated as part of the pleadings. In the
light of the above, there are materials on record to indicate that the stand
taken by the PSC that it had not advised any candidate after amalgamation is
factually incorrect. PSC which is the prime constitutional commission,
constituted with the object of advising Government on all matters relating to
recruitment, is expected to act fairly and uniformly, from which they can
deviate only at their risk and costs.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision
of this court in V.Dineshkumar and others v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank
Ltd. and others( W.P.(C) Nos.14915/2020). In this decision at para 6, it was
held that though the District Co-operative bank on amalgamation ceased to
exist, the vacancies in existence before the date of amalgamation and
recruitment process which had already been initiated can be continued. On
the legal premise, I agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single
Judge in the above decision.
9. However, while placing on record the submissions of the learned
counsel for either side and the documents produced along with the counter
affidavit, since the learned Division Bench is in seizin of the main issue, I am
not inclined to pass any further orders.
Having considered this, by recording the above facts, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
dpk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7348/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
16.07.2012 FOR CATEGORY NO.357/2012.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF INTERVIEW
DATED 07.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST
NO.496/2018/SSV FOR CATEGORY NO.357/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION
DATED 31.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART FOR
RANK NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART FOR
RANK NO.IA ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH A
SUBMISSION TO THE P.S.C.
EX.P8: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST AS WELL AS THE APPOINTMENT CHARTS
FOR THE POST OF PEON/WATCHMAN IN DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
KOZHIKODE.
