Kerala High Court
Dated This The Zrst Day Of January vs Kt'Nhikrisiinai{ on 21 January, 2021
IN THE EIGE COI'RT OF KERAI,A AT ERNAI(I'IJAIr{
PRESENT
TEE EONOT'RJABLE MR. {N'STICE ALEXATiIDER TEODdAS
t
TEE HONOT'RABLE MR. .'I'STICE T.R.RAVI
TEITRSDAY, THE 21ST DAy OF JAITUARY 2O2L / 1ST lneEA, Lg42
?IA.No.652 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/.JI'DGMENT IN WP (C) 33777 /2018 (V) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERJAI,A
APPEI,I.AIiIT,/ PET I T I ONER :
RAGINI P.M.
AGED 34 YEARS
w/o sA.tAN, pooKKoTTUpALLryALrL HOUSE,
AI{AKARjA P. O.MEIJAZHAYAIT{, PATTAMBf TALIIK,
PATAI(KAD DISTRTCI 679 551.
BY ADV. SRI.ALEXAIIDER TIOSEPE
RES POIIDENTS,/RE SPOIIDE}iITS :
1 KERATA PI'BLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM,
TSIRWAI{ANTEAPI'RAI,I-595 OO 4 .
THE DISTRTCT OFFTCER,
KERAI,A PT'BLTC SERVTCE COIO{TSSTON,
TERISSI'R 680020
TEE TERISST'R DTSTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BAI\IK I,TD,
REPRESENTED By rTS GENRAL t'tAr{AGER, TERTSSI'R
680020.
STATE OF KERAI,A,
REPRESETTTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMEI.IT OF CO-OPERATION, @VERNMENT
SECREIARIAT, TEIRITAIIAI{nIEAPI'RAM- 6 95 0 0 1
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDEARAI{
R3 BY SRr . p. C . SASTDEAR]AT{, SC, TERTSSI'R DTSTRTCT
CO.OPERATIVE BAI\IK LTD.
BY ADVS.
SRI . P. C. SASTDEARAI.I FOR R1 TO 3
sRI.B.t NNIKRISENA KLII{AL, @\ZERNMENT PLE]ADER
TEIS !{RIT APPEJAL EAVTNG BEEN FINAI,IJY EEARD ON
2L.0L.202L, THE COURT ON THE SAI'IE DAY DELMRED TEE
FOLLOWING:
WANo.6gzof zorg
2
ALEXANDERTHOITIAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
W.A No. 6Sa 0f 2ot9
(arising out of the judgment dated 2o-12-2o1g
in W.P(C) No.ggZ77 of 2o1g)
Dated this the zrst day of January,2o2L
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDERTHOMAS. J.
The afore captioned writ appeal has been filed by the writ
petitioner in w.P(c) No.sg777/2org to impugn the judgment dated
2o-r2-2or8 rendered by the learned single Judge in that w.p(c).
z. Heard sri.Alexander Joseph, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, sri.P.c.sasidharan, learned standing counsel for the
Kerala Public service commission appearing for R1 to rc and
sri.B.unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government pleader appearing
for R4 State of Kerala.
3. The abovesaid w.p(c) No.gs777/2org was disposed of by
the learned single Judge along with three other writ petitions (c)
zo16, W.p(C) Nos.BgSZ/zotg & W.p
viz,W.P(C)No.S+rgf
(c) No.zro36 of zor8. we are now apprised that separate writ
appeals were filed as w.A Nos.z47, 29J, and 2g2s of zorg to
challenge the very same common judgment in the other three
w.P(c)s and the Division Bench has already rendered a common
WANo. 652 of zorg
judgment dated z6-oz-zozo in w.A Nos.z47
, 2gs & z3z5 of 2org,
dismissing all those r,rrrit appeals and thus affirming the correctness
of the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in
these cases. The matter in issue is fully covered by the common
judgment dated z6-oz-zozo already rendered by the Division Bench
of this court in w.A No.z47lzor9 and connected appeals.
4. Hence it is ordered that the present rvrit appeal will also
stand covered by findings and orders already made by the Division
Bench of this court in judgment dated z6-oz-zozo in w.A
No.z47l2oLg and connected appeals. However for the sake of clarity
it is ordered, the Registry will ensure that a copy of the said common
judgment dated z6-oz-zo20 in w.A No.z4\/zorg and connected
appeals shall be placed as Annexure to this judgment.
With these observations and directions the above Writ Appeal
will stand dismissed.
sd/-
ALEXAI\DER THOMA,S, JLTDGE
sd/-
T.R-RAVr, JUDGE
KAS
IN THE HIGH COURI OF KERAI.A AT ER}IAKUI.AM
PRESENT
TIfE lr_ory_orJEaElE l4,,rrJsTIgE [, yIryQp gq4t!_D!4_lv
&
THE HONOI'RABLE }4R,. iIUSTTCE P.V. KUNHTKRISHIiIAI{
I{EDNESDAY/ THE 26TH DAY oF FEBRUARY 2O2O / 7TH prrAl.ellilA, 1941
VilA.No.247 OF 2019
AGJAINST THE ORDER/iII'DGMENT IN TrP(C) L3957/2018(D) OF IIIGH COT'RT
OF KERJAI.A
APPELI.A}iIT/S:
BIJU V.,
AGED 45 YEJARS
AKSHAqAMTA, KABDdPAD-A}T PABA}BA, I-(AIJIJLT, CAITCUT-
573003.
2 NOORJAIIAI{ M. ,
KOKKTT.ATTU HOUSE, t4AlIllUR p.O. , CAITCUT-673329.
3 JEEiIESH K.,
sAy,uE_y4E4, pArAiltrgA p, 9., K9Z!!IK9pE-673571.
BY ADV. SRI. P.N.MOHANAI{
RESPONDENT/S:
-IE-BAIA PUB-LTE SEB-\TIS-E qS44TSSI9N,
REPRESENTED By SECRETARY, THTRIt\rAlilAlITIrApUReD{-
695001.
DTSTRICT OFFICER,
KER.AT.A pItBLrC SER\rTCE COMMTSSION, CI\IIL STATTON,
K9ZHIS_oD_E-673901 .
KOZHIKODE DISTRTCT CO-OPERATN|E BA}iIK,
REPRESENTED By ITS GENERAI l4AI{ActER, KOZHIKODE-
673001.
B-1.2 Eg SBI,P-.q-.EASIPEEBAN, 9Q, KPgq
TTIIS WRIT APPE;AT HAVTNG BEEN FII{IALLY HE,ARD ON 26-02-2020,
AtoNe wrrH wA.293/20t9, wA.2325/2019, THE COURT ON 26-02-2020
DELI\IERED THE FOLLOIVING:
WA No .24'7 /20L9 & con. Cases
..2..
rN TE-E EISE EOUBT OF KEEALA AT ERNAKqL,AU
PRESENT
TEE EONOT,RABLE MR..I'STICE K.VINOD CEAI.IDRAI.I
t
THE EONOT'RJABLE IdR. .TI'STICE P.V.KT'NEIKRISENATiI
I{EDNESDAY, TEE 26TE DAY OF SEBRUARY 2O2O / ?TB PEALGT'NA,
vsA.No.293 OF 2019
AGAINST TEE ORDER/.I,DGD{EIiIT rilp (c) 2LO36/2019
rN (D) OF ErcE
COT'RT OF KERAI,A
APPELI..A$NTIS:
PREETE.A E.D.
AGED 37 YE,ARS
D/O.DAII{ODARAI.I NATBOODIRI, RESIDINe AT ERAI\IOOR
ldAI{A, VASUPIIRjAIT{, }BTTATEOORK[INNU, TERISSIIR.
CARMEL TEOD4AS
CARMEL VILr,A, I{ATEILTL. p. O., KADAVOOR, KOLI"ATT{
DTSTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI . B . KRTSHNA !GI{I
RESPONDEIiIT/S:
THE KERjAI,A PttBLIe SER\II€E eO[fit{IgSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF TEE KERAI,A
PI'BLTC SERVTCE COMMTSSTON, PATTOM,
rE TRWAI{AI{ITEAPT'RJAI{- 695OO4 .
2 TEE ADDITTOIIAI SECRETARY
(SECRETARIAT OF CEAIRT'IAI.I) TEE KERALAT pItBLfC
SERVTCE COMMTSSTON, OFFTCE OF TEE KERALA
PI'BLTC SERVTCE COMMISSTON, PATTOM,
TE IRTryAI\TAI{TEAPT'RAM- 6 9 5 O O { .
WA No .241 /201,9 & con. Cases
..3..
3 IEE REGISTRAA OF EO-OPEBATIVE SQCTETIES,
TEIRWAI{AI{TEAPT'RJA}'. 5 9 5 O O 1 .
4 PATEAI{ATETTTA DISTRICT CO-OPERLTI\ZE BANK
LTD.NO.4365, NE]AR KSRTC, ttyLApRA ROAD,
PATEA}IEMTEITTA
589671. REPRESENTED BY rTS }NNAGER.
TERTSSUR DTSTRTCT CO-OPEJARTIITE BAI\IK LTD.
KURUPPAM ROAD, TO9|N BRAIICH, TERISSITR-690001,
REPRESENTED BY TTS }ru{AGER.
R1-2 BY SRI.P.C.SASTDEARAII, SC, KPSC
R4 By SRr . T. p . PRADEEP, SC, DrST. CO. Op . BAIIK, pTA
THIS WRIT FINAILY EEARD ON 26-02.
APPEJAL EAVTNG BEEN
2020, ALONG WrTH WA.247 /2019, WA.2325/2OL|, TEE COITRT ON
26-02-2020 DELIVERED TEE FOLLO9IING:
WA No.247/2079 & con. Cases
IN THE HIEH COURT OF KERJAI,A AT ERI{AKT'I.AM
PRESENT
THE HONOT'RABLE MR. iTUSTICE K.\T[NOD CIIA}IDRA}I
&
THE HONOT'RABLE I{R. JUSTTCE P.V. KUNHTKRISHTiIA}I
TIEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF E"EBRUARY 2O2O / 7TH PITATGI'IiIA, 1941
IuA. No. 2325 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/[email protected] IN !YP(C) 54L9/2OL6(BI OF HIEH COT'RT
OF KERAI.A
APPELIANT/S:
}NNOiI KT'![AR K
AGED 36 YE;ARS
S/O. INDHAVA}T NAIR,
KOMBRATH HOUSE, \lENKIrAlite P O,
THRTSSI'R-680510 .
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISTII{A T'IAI{I
RESPONDENT/S:
-rq_BAIA _PlrBr,I g E_EB_\r_r q_E [email protected]{_r g s r 9_N
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
KERALA PIIBLIC SERVTCE COMIVIISSrONER, PATTOM,
TH IRI'\TA}IANTIIAPURJN{- 5 95 O O 4 .
THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KER,AI,A PI'BLTC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFF]CE, THRTSSI'R-680001.
rHE DISTRICT CO.OPERATr\IE BAIiIK,
REPRESENIED BY ITS I{ATi[AGER,
SASAKARAI{A SADABDT In}IDIRAM, KOVILAI(ATHU PADAM,
TUDA ROAD, THRISST'R-68OO22.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FII{IAILY HEJARD ON 25-02-2020,
Ar,oNe wrTH wA.247 /20L9, WA.293/2OL9, THE COITRT ON 26-02-2020
DELN/ERED THE FOLLOTfING:
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases
q
wA Nos . 24'7 , 293 & 2325 of 2079
Jt,DGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2020
K.Vinod Chandran. J.
The short question agitated before this Court
is as to whether the appellants woul_d be
entitled to claim the benefit of the order
passed in Civil Appeal No.10i12 of 20Ii and
connected cases by the Hon'bl_e Supreme Court,
which is produced as Ext.p4 dated 2I.08.2017 in
WA No .241 of 2AI9 .
2. On brief facts, it has to be noticed that the
appellants were all_ persons, who possess B.Com
(Co-operation), and they applied pursuant to a
notif icati-on dated 14.12.2009 (Ext. P1 in WA
Nos.247 /2019 & 2325/2019) . The said
notification does not, among the required
qual j-f ications, provide B. Com (Co-operation) as
WA No.247/2019 & con. Cases
..6..
an eligible qualif ication. Later, the Keral_a
Co-operative Society Rules were amended and in
Rule 1-86 , B . Com (Co-operation ) was also made
one of the eligible qualifications. This
amendment was carried out on 02.L1,.201,0. In the
meanwhile, the l-ast date of application was
over. The appellants were persons, who applied
pursuant to the origi-nal not j_ficati_on itself .
Certain other persons having B. Com
(Co-operation) , approached this Court
contending that B. Com (Co-operation) shoul-d be
treated as qualification eligible for
consideration even under the original
notification of 2009, especially, si_nce it is a
higher qualification than the ones notified. A
Division Bench of this Court rejected the
contention on the ground that the amendment
came later to the notif icati-on and have only
prospective application. The unsuccessful-
appellants therein approached the Hon'bl-e
Supreme Court, in which Ext . P4 order (WA No .24'7
WA No.24"7/2079 & con. Cases
. .1 .
of 2019) was passed. Ext. P4 is extracted
hereunder:
\\T arr.a
!savE ^s^*+^l
grdrrLU\,1
We have heard learned counsel for the
n:rJ-ioq
The appellants have completed B.Com. Degree
with Co-operatj-on as a special subject and
applied for the post of Branch Manager in the
District Co-operatj-ve Banks in the State of
Keral-a, in pursuance of Notification dated 14th
December, 2009 issued by the public Service
Commission. They have been held to be ineligible
on the ground that prior to Notification dated 2"d
November, 201,0, they did not have diploma in
co-operation, as required, even if they had a
B.Com. Degree with Co-operation as a special
subject. The High Court has held that
Notification dated 2"d November, 2010 whlch makes
J-hOm O'liOihl6
Llrsrlr srf vrvre sriII
wrrr :nnlu
al/IJay nr^6nanl-irzalrr
lJruDyEULrvuay.
We are of the view that the said
notification was in the nature of cl_arification
and the object of selection being to get the best
candidates, the appellants could not be excl_uded
from being considered.
Accordinolv we all
aS i Cle
q f he j 66rrnnnA n*nar -nrl di raat- t-h=J- iho
aooettants Ue cons
of
UI sol or-i-
DEAELLAUII. i nn TJ-
, .. is mado r.l oer th:t-
aooointments alreadv made need not be dist-urbeci -
,,
(Underlining by us for emphasis)
The appell-ants herein were not parties before
the Hon'bl-e Supreme Court. The l-earned Single
Judge found delay and l-aches to be standing
against the considerat.ion of the appell_ants
WA No.241 /201,9 & con. Cases
herein as per the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The appel_l_ants had never
challenged the notification and had applied
under the same, fuIIy aware of their
di-squalif j-cation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the learned Single Judge f ound, conf j_ned the
relief to the appellants in the Civil Appeal.
4. The l-earned counsel for the appellants
submitted that this would result in gross
i-njustice since al-1 the 35 appellants in the
Civil Appeal if appointed to the vacant posts,
the appellants herein as also other candidates
with B. Com (Co-operation) , who had applied
under the very same notification and appeared
for the written test, havi_ng more marks than
the persons who had approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, would be excluded from
cons j-deration. It is argued that the correct
approach woul-d have been to direct the pSC to
recast the entire selection l_ist and keep the
appointments already made undisturbed, but to
WA No.247/2079 & con. Cases
. .v. .
make appointments to the 35 vacancies kept
apart. on orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
from the 35 persons, who come high up in the
rank l-ist, which also has to be subject to the
rul-es of rotation for reservation. This
procedure woul-d not conf ine the consideration
to the appellants in the Civil Appeals.
Otherwj-se they woul-d steal- a march over the
other candi-dates who had better rank in the
se-l-ection. They cannot be permitted that
privilege only because they challenged the
notification before Courts. The decl_aration of
the Honrble Supreme Court , of the amendment
being cl-arif icatory woutd equally benef it all_
candidates, who appeared under the
not j-f ication. In fact, it j_s pointed out that
the PSC, on Ext. p4 has all_owed even those
appellants in the Civil Appeal, who had not
applied under the not j_f icat j_on to make
applications for whom a separate test was al_so
conducted.
WA No .24'l /201,9 & con. Cases
..10..
It i-s further submitted by the l-earned counsel-
for the appellants that the order of the
Hon I ble Supreme Court found the amendment to be
in the nature of a clari-ficati-on. It was al-so
observed that the object of sel-ection is to get
the best candj-date; which obj ect woul-d be
frustrated if only the 35 appellants in the
Civil- Appeal are considered for appointment.
6. We are of the opinion that t.he said relief s
cannot be granted by usr especially, sj-nce the
Hon'bl-e Supreme Court has confined the relief
to the appellants therein. We specifically
refer to the underlined portion in the
extracted order of the Hon I ble Supreme Court,
whj-ch underl-ining has been supplied by us f or
emphas j-s . The Hon'bl-e Supreme Court dj-rected
that there shoul-d be no disturbance of persons
already appointed and al-so decl-ared that the
appellants be cons j-dered eligible j-n the
process of selection. In such circumstances,
the appellants in the Civil Appeal could only
WA No.247/20L9 & con. Cases
. .11. .
be considered and none others. If we direct a
rank list to be drawn up of al_l the applicants,
then it coul-d prejudice all or some of the
appellants bef ore the Hon'bl_e Supreme Court,
who are not parties before us. We are of the
opinion that the appeals are to be dismissed
affirming the order of the learned Single
Judge. The writ appeals are dj_smj_ssed without
any order on costs.
sd/ _
K.VfNOD CIIAI{DRAI\I
,tttDGE
sd/ _
P . V. KT'NHIKRISIINAI{
.'I'DGE
Bka/26.02.2020
WA No.247 /201-9 & con. Cases
, .r2. .
APPENDIX OF TIA 2325 ^019
PETITIONER' S /S EXHIBITS :
AITNEXI'BE I TRI'E COPY OF TEE IIITEBIM OBDER DATED
8.10.20L3 REIIDERED BY TEE EON'BLE
SUPREME COI'RT OF IIIDIA IN SPECIAT
LEjLVE TO AppEAr (CrVrL) NO.31237 /2OL3 .
ANNEXI'RE II TRT'E COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2L.8 .2OL7
rN crvrl APPEAT, NO. LO7L2/20L7
REIIDERED BY THE HONIBLE ST'PREME COI'RT
OF TNDIA.
