Kerala High Court
Neena.V vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.14 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1136/2014 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
NEENA.V
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O SHRI SHIJU K, CHIMMANTHARAYIL, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM-
673314.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN
SRI.M.SALIM
SRI.V.M.JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRINTING
AND STATIONARY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR
PRINTING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
4 SHRI BINISH KUMAR .S
S/O SHRI V SASIDHARAN,T C 66/568, KOLIYOOR, MULLECAUD P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.
5 SHRI BABU V A
S/O SHRI VELAPPAN K,
AMBIKA BHAVAN, KARAKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695564.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC,KPSC,
SRI.M.V.BOSE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No.14 OF 2021 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
T.R.RAVI, JJ.
===================
O.P.(KAT) No.14 of 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers of the above original petition (KAT) filed under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :
"i) issue an order or direction to call for the records leading to Exts.P1
and P2 and setaside the same.
ii) issue an order or direction to grant the reliefs prayed for in the OA
or to remand the OA (Ext.P3) to the Hon'ble Tribunal to consider it on
merit and pass orders.
iii) grant such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstance of the case and
iv) award the cost of this petition to the petitioner".
2. Heard Sri.B.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the OP/applicant in the OA before the Tribunal, Sri.B.Vinod,
learned senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1
and 2, Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel for the Kerala Public
Service Commission appearing for R3 and Sri.M.V.Bose, learned counsel
appearing for contesting respondents 4 and 5 herein.
3. The case of the original petitioner/ original applicant in the
Tribunal is that she had duly acquired the qualification of B.Sc. (Printing
Technology) and that she had submitted application to the respondent-
Kerala Public Service Commission for selection to the post of General
Foreman in Printing department, for which the minimum qualifications as
per Annexure- A1 notification dated 29.1.2009 as category No.10/2009 was
pass in SSLC or equivalent qualification and Diploma in Printing
Technology of a recognized institution. That later, the petitioner has come
to know that the respondent-KPSC has rejected her candidature for the
aforesaid post on the ground that she does not possess the prescribed
qualification and has prepared Annexure-A9 rank list dated 19.5.2014,
excluding her name from the selection process. It is being aggrieved by the
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner that she has preferred the
instant original application as OA no.1136 of 2014 before the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-P3 OA with the following
prayers :
"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or
order to the 3rd respondent to include the name of the applicant in
Annexure-A9 rank list.
(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order
declaring the Bsc (Printing Technology) is sufficient qualification for the post of
General Foreman in the Printing Department of the State.
iii) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to
call for the records leading to Annexure A9 and quash the same to the extent it excludes
the name of the applicant.
iv) grant such other orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper
in the circumstance of the case and
v) award the cost of this application to the applicant."
4. Further, it appears that the rank list in question has expired on
18.5.2017 and respondent-KPSC has advised the candidates from the rank
list as against the vacancies reported during the currency .... of the list. It is
thereafter that the abovesaid OA has come up for final hearing of the
Tribunal. Tribunal has dismissed the OA as per the impugned Ext.P1 final
order dated 13.12.2018 on the ground that no relation to be considered in
the OA as the rank list has acquired by them and that therefore, the very
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner need not be adjudicated in
such a scenario as due reliefs to be granted by them on expiry of the rank
list.
5. Being aggrieved by Ext.P1 final order dated 13.12.2018, the
petitioner had filed review application before the Tribunal, which has also
been dismissed as per the impugned Ext.P2 order dated 15.2.2019 in RA
No.8 of 2019 arising out of OA No. 1136 of 2014 on the file of the KAT,
Thiruvananthapuram Bench. It is aggrieved by the abovesaid Exts.P1 and
P2 final orders rendered by the Tribunal in the OA and RA that the
petitioner has filed the instant original petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. There is not dispute to the fact that the rank
list has come into force on 19.5.2014 and has expired on 18.5.2017 and that
the commission has advised candidates included in the said rank list as
against the vacancies reported during the currency of the said list and in
accordance with the rules and regulations etc.
6. Though the petitioner has challenged the very rejection of the
candidature in the abovesaid selection process, it appears from a reading of
the impugned order of the Tribunal that the petitioner has not taken
diligent steps to get the OA moved and considered before the expiry of the
rank list. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court and the
Tribunal that going by the mandatory provisions contained in Rule (13)
and (14) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Rules and Procedure),
the rank list can be operated or advised on candidates as against vacancies
reported during the currency of the rank list and that vacancies, if any
reported after the currency of rank list, there is no question of KPSC
advising any candidates from the expired rank list as against such
vacancies. Therefore, even if it is assumed that if the petitioner succeeds in
getting the impugned rejection order of her candidature quashed and set
aside, there is no question of considering any substantive reliefs to the
petitioner since, all the vacancies reported during the currency of the said
rank list have already been operated by advice on candidates included in
the said rank list.
7. Moreover, the petitioner has not impleaded any of the
candidates included in the rank list, who are affected parties, in case any
such relief is considered. At this distance of time, it is not right and proper
for this Court to consider the grant of reliefs in the facts and circumstances
of this case. We faithfully say so as it appears that the petitioner would have
made out a strong prima facie case, in view of his submission based on the
ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in Jyothi
K.K. v. Kerala State Public Commission JT [2002 (suppl.1) SC 85]
that acquisition of a higher qualification as envisaged in Rul3 10(a)(ii) of
Part II KS&SSR would ordinarily pre-suppose the acquisition of the
prescribed lower qualification in view of the claim of the petitioner that
she has acquired higher qualification of B.Sc (Printing Technology), which
according to her would pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower prescribed
qualification of Diploma in Printing Technology going by the stipulations in
Rule 10(a)(ii) Part II KS&SSR. However, we would certainly desist from
pronouncing any final opinion on this issue as the matter in issue in this
case is redundant and superfluous for the abovesaid reasons. In the light of
these aspects, it will not be right and proper for this Court to interfere with
the considered orders passed by the Tribunal in OA and the RA and in that
view of the matter, we would hold that the matter would no interference at
the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, the original petition stands dismissed.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
sd/-
T.R.RAVI,
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 IN OA
NO. 1136 OF 2014 OF THE HON'BLE KAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.2.2019 IN RA.
NO. 8 OF 2019 IN OA NO.1136 OF 2004.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OA NO. 1136 OF 2014 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES A1 TO A9.
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN THE KERALA
GAZETTE DATED 29/01/2009.
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (REGISTER
NO. S.100938) ISSUED BY THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST NOTIFIED ON
24.2.2012 BY THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DATED
13.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF B.SC (PRINTING TECHNOLOGY)
DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 5/5/2006 ISSUED BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1/2/2014
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28/2/2014.
ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF QUESTION PAPER NO.218/2010.
ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED
19/05/2014.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
14.11.2014 FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT-KPSC.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
14.02.2015FILED BY ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4
AND 5 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R4(A) AND R4(B).
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW APPLICATION NO.8 OF
2019 IN OA NO.1136 OF 2014.
