Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Jayasree G on 7 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
W.A. NO. 1019 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2022 IN WP(C).NO.9281/2022 OF THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO. 3 & 4:
1 JAYASREE G.
AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURIZHUMUTTAM, PEYAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS SECRETARY, KAVALLOOR
PATTIKAJATHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T.817,
VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013.
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KAVALLOOR, PATTIKAJATHI SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. T.817
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013.
3 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), CO-BANK
TOWERS, HEAD OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN ALONG WITH ADV. SRI.C.P.SABARI FOR
R1
ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
=============================================
W. A. No. 1019 of 2023
(arising out of the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2022 in
W. P. (C) No. 9281/2022)
==============================================
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The instant intra court appeal, instituted under Sec.5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, is directed against the impugned judgment
rendered on 27.10.2022 by the learned Single Judge, disposing of the
instant Writ Petition (Civil) - WP(C).No.9281/2022. The appellants
herein are respondents 1 & 2 in the WP(C). R-1 in this Appeal is the
writ petitioner and R-2 & R-3 herein are respondents 3 & 4 respectively
in the WP(C).
2. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for
the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), appearing for the writ
appellants, Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned Advocate instructed by
Sri.C.P.Sabari, learned counsel appearing for R-1 herein/writ petitioner
and Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel appearing for R-3. In the
nature of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in this Appeal,
notice to R-2 will stand dispensed with.
3. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) -
WP(C).No.9281/2022, are as follows:
W. A. No. 1019/2023
..2..
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction directing the first and second respondents to advice the
petitioners from the rank list prepared on the basis of Ext.P4 to the post
of Clerk / Cashier in the third respondent bank and a further direction
to the third respondent to appointment her on the basis of said advice
memo.
ii) declare that the first and second respondents are bound to advice the
petitioner from the rank list prepared on the basis of Ext.P4 and the
fourth respondent is bound to appoint the petitioner to the post of
Clerk / Cashier, in the light of the Ext.P10 Judgment of the Supreme
Court and to assign the due seniority as per the rank list.
iii) declare that petitioners are entitled to get appointment and assign their
seniority in the post of Clerk / Cashier as in the rank list and
consequential benefits and delay of disposal of the case by the Supreme
Court cannot be a detrimental factor to grant the relief.
iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider
and pass orders on Ext.P11 & P12 after affording an opportunity to the
petitioner of being heard.
v) Call for the records leading to issue Ext. P14 and quash the same by
issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction.
vi) declare that petitioner is entitled to be included in the rank list of Clerk /
Cashier prepared on the basis of Ext.P1 notification.
vii) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has
rendered the impugned judgment on 27.10.2022, disposing of the
instant WP(C).No.9281/2022, ordering that the impugned
proceedings of the PSC will stand set aside and the respondent PSC
authorities are also directed to initiate and complete consequential
action, on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Kerala
Public Service Commission v. Radhamani [2021 (5) KLT 262
W. A. No. 1019/2023
..3..
(SC)] as expeditiously as possible, but within 2 months. As per the
said verdict, rendered by the Apex Court in Kerala Public Service
Commission v. Radhamani [2021 (5) KLT 262 (SC)], it has been
ordered by the Apex Court that candidates, who participate in the
selection process conducted by the PSC, to the post of Clerk/Cashier
in the central society (District Co-operative Bank concerned), from
among the 50% quota set apart for regular employees of primary
co-operative societies affiliated to the said central society, need to
have the educational qualification of only matriculation (pass in
SSLC) along with the qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation
and that, such candidates need not necessarily have graduation or
degree.
5. However, it is to be noted that, in the instant case,
R-1 herein/writ petitioner has already suffered an adverse verdict of
a learned Single Judge of this Court, as per Ext.P-15 rendered as
early as on 8.3.2021 in WP(C).No.980/2011 filed by her, in respect of
the very same selection process, in which this Court has found that
the writ petitioner was not eligible for selection, inasmuch as she was
not an employee of the primary co-operative society concerned and
that, she could not produce the service certificate to show that she
was a regular employee of the claimed primary co-operative society,
W. A. No. 1019/2023
..4..
as on the last date of submission of her application to the PSC.
6. It is common ground that the writ petitioner has never
chosen to challenge the abovesaid Ext.P-15 verdict of the Single
Bench, either by way of review or by writ appeal. It is without
resorting to such review remedy or appellate remedy to challenge
Ext.P-15, in the manner known to law, that she has chosen to file a
fresh writ petition, i.e. the instant WP(C).No.9281/2022, claiming
the benefit of the directions issued by the Apex Court in another
matter in issue, etc., which is related to educational qualifications of
the candidates concerned. Hence, it can be seen that the writ
petitioner is barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata from
resurrecting her claim, which has already been determined and
finalised by Ext.P-15 verdict of this Court. However, it is also to be
noted that the writ petitioner has produced a copy of the said verdict,
as per Ext.P-15. The learned Single Judge should have non suited the
writ petitioner on the ground of res judicata, in view of Ext.P-15
adverse verdict suffered by her.
7. Now, even if the Apex Court's judgment is implemented,
the issue relating to the very eligiblity of the writ petitioner has
already been decided and finalised by Ext.P-15 verdict, with the result
that her candidature is only to be rejected. So, the present litigative
W. A. No. 1019/2023
..5..
exercise was highly unnecessary. In that view of the matter, the
impugned judgment would deserve interdiction. Accordingly, it is
ordered that the impugned judgment, rendered on 27.10.2022, by
the learned Single Judge, disposing of WP(C).No.9281/2022, will
stand set aside. Consequently, WP(C).No.9281/2022 will stand
dismissed for the abovesaid reasons.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal
will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
MMG
