Kerala High Court
Aby K. A vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 471 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2025 IN WP(C) NO.6428 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABY K. A
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KARIM, KURIAPULLY HOUSE, ARATTU VAZHI,
ERIYAD P.O, KODUNGALLUR, TRISSUR, PIN - 680666
2 ANEESA K M P
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. ABDURAHIMAN, KARUTHA MOIDEENKUTTINTE PURACKAL,
ARIYALLUR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676312
3 SABEER S
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, PUTHUVEEDU, PAZHIKKARA, PARAVUR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
4 SHIJI K
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. BINUKUMAR S, KAVANEZHATH PUTHUVAL, NEENDAKARA
P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691582
BY ADVS.
K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
K.S.MIZVER
M.J.KIRANKUMAR
M.M.VINOD KUMAR
P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
2
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND
PORTS (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD.RA
NO. F (T) 738 (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANAKKAD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.,
PIN - 695009
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.,
PIN - 695004
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
SMT.NISHA BOSE,SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT
ON 26.03.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. No.6428 of 2023.
The writ petition was filed by the appellants under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Call for records connecting Exts. P1 to P7 from the
respondents concerned;
ii. Call for Ext. P6 from 1st respondent and Issue Writ of
Certiorari to quash para VI (4) and read down the same to
make applicable Rules of Reservation as per General Rules
14 to 17 of KS & SSR to dependents fishermen community;
iii. Call for Ext. P7 from 1st respondent and Issue Writ of
Certiorari to quash para (2) to the extend "rules of
reservation as per General Rules 14 to 17 of Kerala State
and Subordinate Service Rules shall not be applied to item
(2) above (fishermen community) and read down the same
making applicable reservation to fishermen or dependent of
fishermen;
(iv) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to
include rules of reservation as laid down in General Rules
14 to 17 of Part II KS & SSR to fishermen/dependent of
fishermen community for appointment to the post of
Assistant Gr.II/ Junior Assistant in Matsyafed;
(v)Issue Writ of Mandamus directing 3rd respondent to
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
proceed with Ext. P4 ranked list to the post of Assistant Gr.
II/ Junior Assistant Part II. (Fishermen/dependent of
fishermen community) and finalize within a time frame:
(vi) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to
forebear from implementing Ext.P5 through excluding
supplementary list of muslim community, economically
backward and petitioners."
2. By the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2025 the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the
reservation prescribed under the Special Rules for the Kerala State
Cooperative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd
(MATSYAFED), 2016 is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the
above writ appeal.
3. By Exts.P1 to P3 gazette notifications dated 16.11.2020
the 3rd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission invited
applications to the post of Assistant Grade II /Junior Assistant in
MATSYAFED. There are three categories namely, category
229/2020 which is part I general category, category 230/2020
which is part II fisherman/dependent of fisherman category and
Category 231/2020 which is part III society category. The
appellants belong to category No.230/2020. Total 56 posts notified
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
are divided in a ratio of 5:3:2. The rank list in pursuance to the
notifications and selection process came into effect from
23.12.2022. The appellants 1 to 3 are included in the
supplementary list of Muslims as rank Nos. 1, 3 and 4 respectively,
and appellant No.4 as rank No.1 in the Economically Weaker
Section in Ext.P4 rank list of category 230/2020. Subsequently,
the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice dated
09.02.2023 to the 1st appellant as to why the supplementary list
published by Ext.P4 shall not be omitted and thereby the 1st
appellant is excluded. It is pleaded in the writ petition that Ext.P6
Special Rules of MATSYAFED approved by the 1st respondent State
as per the notification dated 17.02.2016 deals with reservation of
appointments. As per para VI of Ext.P6, the reservation as per the
General Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1958 shall apply to the appointments by direct
recruitment subject to the followings:
(1) 10% of the vacancies shall be filled up by direct
recruitment through PSC from the dependents of the
fishermen communities.
(2) 50% of the vacancies shall be filled up by appointments
from open category candidates.
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
(3) 40% of the vacancies shall be reserved to society quota
with condition stipulated thereto.
Note:- A ratio of 1:5:4 shall be fixed for the recruitment
above.
(4) The Rules of Reservation as per the General Rules 14 to
17 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958
shall not be applied to item (1) above.
(5) In the absence of candidates under item No. (3) shall
be filled by Direct Recruitment.
3.1. As per the order dated 27.04.2019 of the 1st
respondent, the Recruitment Rules is renamed as Special Rules for
Kerala State Cooperative Federation for Fisheries Development
Ltd. By Ext.P7 notification dated 02.11.2019, Rule of 10%
reservation earlier set apart for dependents of fishermen
community is enhanced to 30% and that of the society quota is
reduced to 20%. Contending that para VI of Ext.P6 Recruitment
Rules and Ext.P7 amendment as unconstitutional, arbitrary and
against ends of justice, the appellants filed the writ petition. They
contended that no candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe ('SC/ST' in short) or the backward community
can claim reservation against the 30% of quota, but at the same
time, the persons belonging to a backward community or SC/ST
of the 1st category can apply against vacancies of 50% and 20%,
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
i.e, open categories and candidates belonging to society quota if
he is working in a society. It is contended that this is a double
reservation in favour of the candidates from the fishermen
community as they can apply against 50% and 20% quota and
claim general reservation.
4. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated
20.01.2024 in the writ petition opposing the pleadings in the writ
petition regarding discrimination in the reservation, producing
therewith Ext.R1(a) document. Paragraphs 3 to 5 and next two
paragraphs of that counter affidavit read thus:
"3. As regards in the averments in para 4 and 5 of the Writ
Petition, it is submitted that the petitioners are included in
the rank list of Category 230/2020 (fishermen, dependent
of fishermen). As per the Prevailing Special Rule of
Matsyafed, the rule of reservation as per the General Rules
14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1958 shall not be applied to direct recruitment through PSC
from Category reserved for fishermen and the dependents
of fishermen. The Commission while publishing the rank list
in Category 230/2020 (fishermen, dependent of fishermen)
on 23.12.2022, erroneously published supplementary
ranked list also. As the error was noticed by the
Commission, the recruitment authority issued notice to the
candidates included in the supplementary ranked list about
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
omitting/cancelling the same.
4. As regards in the averments in para 6 and 7 of the Writ
Petition, as per Special Rule of Matsyafed issued vide
G.O(P)No.5/2016/F&PD dated 17.02.2016 and its further
amendment issued vide G.O(P)No.41/2019/F&PD dated
02.11.2019, 30% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment
has been reserved for fishermen and the dependents of
fishermen. The General Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 shall not be applied
for direct appointment to this category as one sought of
reservation in the form of 'fishermen/dependent of
fishermen' is being provided. The petitioners opted for
selection in Category 230/2020 (fishermen, dependent of
fishermen). Hence the allegation made by the petitioners
that they are denying reservation for appointment is
baseless and is to be denied.
5. As regards the averments in Grounds A to E the
prevailing Special Rule of Matsyafed issued vide
G.O(P)No.5/2016/F&PD dated 17.02.2016 and its further
amendments, the ratio of reservation for direct recruitment
in Matsyafed is fixed as 5:3:2 for open (category-1),
fishermen and dependents of fishermen (category-2) and
Society quota (category - 3). Among this, the General Rules
14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1958 shall not be applied for direct appointment to
category-2. In the notification issued by the Commission,
for appointment towards category 230/2020 (fishermen,
dependent of fishermen) Ex P1 among other details
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
provided, it was also made clear that General Rules 14 to
17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958
shall not be applied in that category. This notification has
been issued to provide awareness among the candidates
regarding the recruitment procedure. Accepting all these,
the petitioners applied in this category. If they are opting
for reservation as provided in General Rules 14 to 17 of the
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, they
have to opt in the General Quota.
As per Rule 187 of KCS Act 1969, for appointment to Apex
Societies or Central Societies, 50% of the vacancies shall
be reserved to the employees of the member societies of
the Apex Society or Central Society as the case may be,
having a minimum regular service of 3 years and having the
required qualification for the notified posts in the Apex
Society or Central Society. As per the Special Rules of
Matsyafed, 20% has been reserved for Society Quota.
Accordingly, the candidates having minimum 3 years of
regular service in any cadre in the Primary Fishermen
Welfare Co-operative Societies with required qualification
for the notified post with age limit 18-50 and who are in
service not only on the date of application but also on the
date of appointment to the new post are considered for the
appointment through the Society Quota. Hence the
averment that employees of Matsyafed are getting triple
benefit is not true to facts, since those candidates who are
considered for appointment under the society quota belongs
to Primary Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Societies.
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
The Commission has published supplementary rank list in
Category 230/2020 (fishermen, dependent of fishermen),
erroneously and on noticing the same, the Commission took
measures to cancel it by issuing notice to the candidates
included in the supplementary list. Hence it is submitted
that as the selection process done by Kerala Public Service
Commission is in accordance with the Special Rules, the
arguments made by petitioners are devoid of merit and the
Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs".
5. To the counter affidavit the appellants filed a reply
affidavit dated 08.02.2024 producing therewith Exts.P8 to P10
documents.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned
Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no
candidate belonging to SC/ST or backward community can claim
reservation against 30% quota by virtue of Ext.P6 Special Rules
of MATSYAFED. On the other hand, persons belonging to SC/ST or
backward communities can apply against vacancies of 50% and
20% quota and this is discriminatory.
8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that in paragraph No.3 of the impugned
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
judgment, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered this
contention of the appellants and no inference is needed to the
impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent
submitted that reservation is only an enabling provision and the
fisherman or dependents of fisherman falling under category
230/2020 is a class by themselves and there is no question of
double reservation as contended by the appellants.
9. The 10% of posts reserved in Ext.P6 which was amended
as 30% by Ext.P7, exclusively for the candidates who are
fishermen or dependents of fishermen irrespective of the fact
whether they belong to the backward community or SC/ST or
general category. A person who is not falling under the category
of fishermen or dependents of fishermen is not entitled to apply
for the posts reserved in this category, even if he belongs to a
backward community or SC/ST. However, a person who belongs
to a backward community, as well as fishermen, can apply for the
post reserved in 50% and 20% vacancies and they can claim
general reservation. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge,
the reservation for SC/ST and backward communities is separate
and distinct from the seats exclusively earmarked for the
WA No.471 of 2025 2025:KER:25371
fishermen community. The fishermen community candidates are
not claiming reservation in respect of 30% vacancies as SC/ST or
backward community. If reservation is given for SC/ST and
backward class candidates in the 30% vacancies meant for
fishermen or dependents of fishermen, then it would amount to
double reservation as rightly found by the learned Single Judge.
But if a candidate is claiming reservation against open category or
the vacancies of the society quota it cannot be said that he is
claiming double reservation. Therefore, we concur with the finding
of the learned Single judge that there is no discrimination in Ext.P6
Rules which was amended by Ext.P7.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submission made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
