Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Shalini C on 16 June, 2025
WA NO. 136/2025 1
2025:KER:42247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO.136 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.15777/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SHALINI C,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.B.S.ANILKUMAR, PURUTHIVILA VEEDU, MARUTHAMAN,
KALLARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695608
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WA NO. 136/2025 2
2025:KER:42247
4 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, R1
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, R3, R4
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER, R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 136/2025 3
2025:KER:42247
JUDGMENT
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the Kerala Public Service
Commission (PSC) challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2024 in
W.P.(C) No.15777 of 2024 of the learned Single Judge whereby the
PSC was directed to issue advice in respect of the 1 st respondent
[petitioner in the W.P.(C)] for her appointment to the post of Helper/
Peon re-designated as Office Attendant in the 3 rd respondent
Beverages Corporation from the ranked list dated 28.12.2013.
2. The 1st respondent had applied for the post of helper/peon
re-designated as Office Attendant, in the Kerala State Beverages
(Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. The name of the 1 st
respondent was included in the ranked list dated 28.12.2013. The
said ranked list and the recruitment rule, which denied the
appointment of female candidates to the post of helper/peon, re-
designated as Office Attendant, were set aside by this Court.
Thereafter, the female candidates were also included in the ranked
list, including the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent alleged that she
2025:KER:42247
is being denied the appointment on the ground taken by the Kerala
Public Service Commission that the ranked list dated 28.12.2013
had expired on 27.12.2016 and no recommendation can be made
based on the said expired rank list. She contended that concerning
similarly situated persons, this Court had in W.P.(C) No.9112 of 2019
directed the PSC to advise the Beverages Corporation and to offer
them an appointment in the post of Office Attendant/Shop Assistant.
The 1st respondent is higher in rank than the two persons who got
appointed in pursuance of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9112 of
2019. Hence, she claims that she is entitled to be treated similarly.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the W.P.(C) No.15777 of
2024 holding that insofar as the 1 st respondent is above in rank than
the two other persons who got appointed and since there were
vacancies in the Beverages Corporation and as the Corporation
does not have any objection in appointing the 1 st respondent, the
case of the 1st respondent is also an exemption as the case of the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.9112 of 2019. Accordingly, the PSC was
directed to issue advice in respect of the 1 st respondent for the
appointment as stated above. This judgment of the learned Single
2025:KER:42247
Judge is assailed by the KPSC in this Writ Appeal.
3. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate for the appellant,
Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate for the 1 st respondent,
Sri.T.Naveen, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the 3 rd and 4th
respondents.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned Single Judge erred in directing the PSC to issue advice
after taking note of the fact that the advice of the two candidates in
the earlier round of litigations was confined to the three petitioners
therein and the said judgment in W.P.(C) No.9112 of 2019 had
specifically stated that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.
Thus, the said judgment was binding on the Commission as well as
on the candidates and the same was implemented solely because
this Court had directed that it would not be treated as a precedent
for any future cases, and taking note of the fact that vacancies were
created by the Government for advising female candidates. The turn
of the 1st respondent had not arisen even after the vacancies arose
consequent to the reworking of the rotation, and all vacancies to
which female candidates could have been advised had been duly
2025:KER:42247
filled up by applying the rules of reservation and rotation. It was
contended by the learned counsel for the PSC that the male
candidates who are likely to be thrown out on accommodating
female candidates were accommodated to the vacancies created by
the Government as supernumerary vacancies. So far as the 1 st
respondent is an open competition candidate with rank No.751 and
the last competition candidate advised was with OC No.451, the turn
of the 1st respondent by no stretch of imagination will arise in the
near future. The learned Single Judge failed to take note of the said
aspect while rendering the judgment. Reliance was also placed on
the dictum laid down by this Court in KPSC and another v.
Sheejamol M.C. and others [2020 (5) KHC 555 (F.B.)], wherein it
had been held that PSC cannot advise any candidate after the
expiry of a ranked list. The willingness of the Beverages
Corporation, it was contended, had no relevance, and what
mattered was whether the PSC could be directed to advise the
candidate from a time-expired rank list. That the 1 st respondent is
attempting to take an undue advantage of an appointment made in
terms of the judgment of this Court, and that the vacancies which
2025:KER:42247
presently exist, have no relevance for operating a ranked list that
expired as early as in 2016, was also contended. The learned
counsel thus submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the
judgment of the learned Single Judge may be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
submitted that the 1st respondent had filed W.P.(C) No.3883 of 2017
seeking the same benefit extended to women candidates and in the
same Ext.P3 judgment had been rendered as early as on
04.04.2017, holding that the findings and directions contained in the
earlier judgment extending benefits to women candidates shall be
extended to her and that on reworking of the vacancies she would
also be entitled to appointment in case persons lower in rank than
her had already been advised for appointment in the order of
rotation. Further, the 1st respondent had filed I.A.No.1 of 2024
seeking leave to appeal aggrieved by the observation made by the
learned Single Judge in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9112 of 2019 to
the extent it directed that the said judgment shall not be treated as a
precedent for other candidates. The Division Bench, while
dismissing the said I.A. vide Ext.P17 order had taken note of the fact
2025:KER:42247
that the applicant had filed the W.P.(C) in which the impugned
judgment was rendered later and had stated that it is for the
applicant to raise the appropriate legal and factual contentions in
support of the relief sought for in the said W.P.(C) pending before
the learned Single Judge and that she has no right to file an
application seeking leave to challenge the observation made in the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9112
of 2019. Thus it was contended by the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent that it is not as if that the 1 st respondent had approached
the court after the rendering of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9112 of
2019 seeking to obtain benefit of the same and her rights had been
specifically reserved to be agitated in the pending W.P.(C) by the
Division Bench in Ext.P17. The learned Single Judge had validly
taken note of the said aspect and had directed the PSC to issue
advice in respect of the 1st respondent for her appointment.
6. We have heard all parties and have considered the
contentions put forth in detail. We note that Ext.P3 judgment in
W.P.(C) No.3883 of 2017 and Ext.P17 order rendered by the
Division Bench wherein it had reserved the rights of the 1 st
2025:KER:42247
respondent, assumes relevance and takes away the wind from the
contention of the appellant that the 1 st respondent was attempting to
take advantage of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9112 of 2019. We
find merit in the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
respondent on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Lt.
Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and others [2024 SCC
Online SC 3664] wherein it had been held as follows:
"14. It is a well-settled principle of law that where a citizen
aggrieved by an action of the Government Department
has approached the court and obtained a declaration of
law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be
extended the benefit without the need for them to go to
court. [See Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central
Excise, New Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 714)"
Insofar as the petitioner had timely agitated the matter before this
Court and that Ext.P3 and Ext.P17 judgment/order had been
rendered, validates the finding arrived at by the learned Single
Judge that the 1st respondent being above in rank than the other
persons who got appointed in pursuance of the earlier judgment of
this Court is also entitled to be issued with an advice in respect of
her appointment to the post of helper/peon re-designated as Office
Attendant in the Beverages Corporation from the ranked list dated
28.12.2013.
2025:KER:42247
7. We also find the following observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel (supra) as relevant and
auguring well for the 1st respondent in the case at hand:
"23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly
excluded from consideration when other similarly
situated officers were considered and granted
permanent commission. Today, 11 years have
elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors
of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45
years of age. There has been no fault on the part of
the appellant."
8. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with
the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal.
Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
