[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rasna K V vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:11319
1
OP(KAT)No.492 of 2025
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 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 492 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 IN OA NO.795 OF 2025 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 RASNA K V ,AGED 32 YEARS,W/O. SHAJI K, PUSHPA NIVAS,
KANNOTH P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670037
2 MEDHA MADHU,AGED 32 YEARS,W/O. JOY, PADINJATTINKARA
HOUSE, PADIYOTTUCHAL P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670307
3 SREENATH E I,AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. E I RAVEENDRAN,
EDAVALATHILLAM, ERAMAM NORTH, ERAMAM DESOM P.O.,
PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670307
4 SHEJINA KOMATH,AGED 33 YEARS,W/O. ARJUN C N, KOODU,
EDAKOTTA ROAD, KOLAYAD, ALACHERRY P O, KANNUR, PIN -
670650
5 DILNA C,AGED 31 YEARS,W/O. NIKHILESH, DEVI KRIPA,
PERIYACHUR, PORORA P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670702
BY ADVS.
SMT.MOLTY MAJEED
SHRI.C.A.MAJEED
SHRI.K.H.ASIF
SHRI.P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR
SMT.SHERIN BIJU
2026:KER:11319
2
OP(KAT)No.492 of 2025
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDCUATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
TTI MENS COMPLEX, KANNUR, PIN - 686001
4 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPSC BUILDING,PATTOM
PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
5 THE DISTRICT OFFICER
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670702
BY ADVS.
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
27.1.2026, THE COURT ON 11.2.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11319
3
OP(KAT)No.492 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants in O.A.No.795 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the 'Tribunal' for
short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Ext.P8 order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the
Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioners are aspirants for appointment to the post of Lower
Primary School Teachers (Malayalam Medium) in the schools under
the 1st respondent in Kannur District. Based on the test and
interview conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission
(KPSC' for short), they are all included in the ranked list prepared
district-wise for appointment to Lower Primary Schools under the
3rd respondent. Despite having advised several candidates from
the ranked list, it is noticed that a large number of substantive
vacancies that have arisen during the period of validity of the
ranked list are unfilled, on the reasoning that these vacancies will
arise only after the present list has expired. Similarly, even though
2026:KER:11319
various posts have actually become vacant due to superannuation
of the incumbents, the respondents are taking the stand that such
vacancies are not available to be filled from the existing ranked
list, since the same can be filled as per Rule 7A(2) of Chapter XIV
A of the Kerala Education rules 1959 ('KER' for short), only after
the re-opening of schools. Contending that the aforesaid actions
are unjustifiable, the petitioners-applicants filed O.A.No.795 of
2025 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other
such appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the
3rd respondent to immediately report to the 4th respondent
for advise and appointment all the vacancies in the post of
Lower Primary School Teacher (Malayalam Medium) in
Kannur district, which have arisen or are due to arise during
the pendency of Annexure-A2 rank list, from the qualified
candidates included in that rank list, at any rate prior to
31.05.2025;
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other
such appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4 th
respondent to immediately advise the suitable qualified
candidates from Annexure A2 rank list to the 32 vacancies
reported by the 3rd respondent to be presently available in
the post of Lower Primary School Teacher (Malayalam
Medium) in Kannur District, in accordance with law;
2026:KER:11319
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other
such appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the
3rd respondent to report the anticipated 20 vacancies due
to arise on 31.05.2025 on retirement on superannuation of
incumbents to the 4th respondent as vacancies arising
during the validity of Annexure-A2 list, and consequently,
direct the 4th respondent to advise suitable candidates from
Annexure-A2 list to these vacancies".
3. On 19.05.2025 when the original application came up
for consideration along with connected original applications, the
Tribunal passed Ext.P2 interim order whereby the Deputy Director
of Education in all the districts concerned were directed to report
all the vacancies of L.P. School Teachers (Malayalam Medium),
arising before the expiry of the ranked lists which were brought
into force with effect from 31.05.2022, well in advance before
expiry of the ranked list to the District Offices of the KPSC
concerned.
4. On 23.05.2025, by Ext.P3 interim order, the Tribunal
directed the learned Government Pleader to file a statement on or
before 27.05.2025 furnishing the details of the vacancies which
are already reported and also addressing the contentions raised
by the petitioners-applicants with regard to availability of
2026:KER:11319
vacancies on retirement, inter district transfer, creation of
additional divisions, vacancies on acquisition of Aided Schools etc.
However, on 27.05.2025, the learned Government Pleader did not
file the consolidated statement as directed in Ext.P3 interim order.
5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement
dated 28.05.2025 was filed before the Tribunal opposing the
reliefs sought by the petitioners and also detailing the vacancy
positions.
6. On 29.05.2025, the Tribunal passed Ext.P6 interim
order making it clear that the expiry of the ranked lists on
30.05.2025 or on 31.05.2025 will not stand in the way of the
Tribunal directing reporting of vacancies if any ultimately found as
existed as on the date of expiry of the ranked lists. The said order
reads thus:
"In all these Original Applications, there exist strong
contentions regarding the non-reporting of existing
vacancies to the PSC, for advice and appointment out of the
ranked lists produced. There is also a contention regarding
the date of expiry of the ranked lists. Contention of the
applicants is that the ranked lists will expire only with effect
from 31.05.2025; whereas the PSC as well as the
Government is taking a stand that the ranked lists will
2026:KER:11319
expire on 30.05.2025. Apart from that, it is pointed out
that, the State Government had issued GO
(MS)No.95/2025/GEDN on today (29.05.2025) sanctioning
additional posts with respect to the academic year 2024-
2025, on the basis of verification of students strength and
fixation staff strength as recommended by the authorities.
It is pointed out that as per the above said Government
Order a total number of 915 posts were newly created with
respect to 552 Government schools in all the cadre.
Contention of the applicants is that creation of the new
posts will relate back to 1st of October, 2024. Based on all
these, it is contended that, all the vacancies which existed
as on the date of expiry of the ranked lists need to be
advised out of the ranked lists in question.
2. Since validity of ranked lists is expiring as on 30.05.2025
or on 31.05.2025, this Tribunal makes it clear that, the
expiry of the ranked lists will not stand in the way of this
Tribunal directing reporting of vacancies if any, ultimately
found as existed as on the date of expiry of the ranked lists."
7. The petitioners thereafter filed M.A.No.1086 of 2025
before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the 5th respondent to
issue advice to the two vacancies remaining, from Annexure A2
ranked list dated 31.05.2022 published by the KPSC and direct the
3rd respondent to report four vacancies to the 5th respondent for
advice and appointment from Annexure A2 ranked list. Along with
that interlocutory application, the petitioners have produced
2026:KER:11319
Annexures A5 to A9 documents. Thereafter, on 25.09.2025, by the
impugned Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal disposed of the original
application along with four other connected similar original
applications. The said order read thus:
"All these cases are filed by candidates included in ranked
list for the post of LPST in various districts that is
Pathanamthitta, Kottayam, Kannur, and Alappuzha. The
ranked lists expired on 30.05.2025. There was no direction
to report any vacancies at least on provisional basis to the
Public Service Commission before the expiry of the ranked
list. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court in Vimalakumari v. State [1994(2) KLT 47], this
Tribunal would not be in a position to issue any direction to
the Public Service Commission (PSC) in the absence of any
vacancy reported to them prior to the expiry of the ranked
list.
2. The learned counsel for the PSC, on instructions,
submitted that the advice has already been issued against
the vacancies reported as on 30.05.2025 from the ranked
list which was in force on 30.05.2025. This is recorded.
These Original Applications are accordingly disposed of."
8. Being aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal, the
petitioners-applicants are now before this Court with this original
petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
2026:KER:11319
Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and
the learned Senior Government Pleader.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
despite the protection granted in Ext.P6 interim order dated
29.05.2025, the Tribunal disposed of the original application
without considering the materials on record, solely on the ground
that there were no provisionally reported vacancies. From
Annexures A5 to A8 documents, it is clear that there are vacancies
in existence as contended by the petitioners.
11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
KPSC, by relying on the judgment of this Court in Kerala Public
Service Commission v. Sheejamol M.C. [2020 (5) KHC 555]
and also the judgment dated 12.12.2025 in W.A.No.1191 of 2016
submitted that even if vacancies are there, no appointments can
be effected after the expiry of the ranked list if the vacancies are
unreported.
12. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that the vacancies mentioned in G.O.(MS)No.95/2025/GEDN
dated 29.05.2025, referred to in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, are
reported vacancies, against which advices were already been
2026:KER:11319
issued before the expiry of the ranked lists and hence no
interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal.
13. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
14. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
15. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
2026:KER:11319
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
16. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
2026:KER:11319
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
17. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
18. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
2026:KER:11319
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
19. The petitioners are included in the ranked list for the
post of Lower Primary School Teacher (Malayalam Medium). The
ranked list expired on 30.05.2025. The claim of the petitioners at
present is that despite the existence of vacancies, they were not
reported to the KPSC for advice and appointment. Likewise, the
petitioners contend that through the Tribunal by Ext.P6 interim
order made it clear that the expiry of the ranked list will not stand
in the way of the Tribunal directing reporting of vacancies if any,
2026:KER:11319
ultimately found as existed as on the date of expiry of the ranked
lists, the same was not taken into consideration while disposing of
the original application relying on the judgment of the Full Bench
of this Court in Vimalakumari v. State [1994 (2) KLT 47].
20. While going through Ext.P6 interim order of the
Tribunal, we notice that the said order was passed on 29.05.2025.
In that order, it was observed that the State Government had
issued G.O.(MS) No.95/2025/GEDN on that day, that is on
29.05.2025. But during the course of arguments, the learned
Senior Government Pleader produced a copy of the Government
Order referred to in Ext.P6 interim order of the Tribunal, from
which we notice that the order was endorsed for circulation only
at 17.27.45 hours on that day. From the said endorsement, it can
only be said that Ext.P6 interim order was passed by the Tribunal
without seeing the Government Order dated 29.05.2025, but only
relying on the oral submission made at the Bar. The learned
Senior Government Pleader would submit that the additional posts
created by the said Government Order dated 29.05.2025 are
reported vacancies.
21. In Vimalakumari [1994 (2) KLT 47], the Full Bench
2026:KER:11319
of this Court held thus:
"22. Counsel relied on the following observations of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in ILR 1982 (1) Ker. 346:
"No doubt, on the question of advice the 3rd
respondent has a case that the Public Service
Commission would have nothing to do with it,
the list having lapsed on 25th January 1981,
and also for the reason that no requisition for
advice was received from the 2nd respondent.
Is the Court helpless in this matter in the
situation stated? Having considered the
magnitude and complexity of the problem in its
depth, I am of the view that the Court has not
only the right but also the duty to ensure that
the appointing authority does not circumvent its
statutory obligation under Rule 31(a)(ii) of the
Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules by
delaying and defeating the rights of the selected
candidates to get appointed to the posts which
fall to their lot. Procedure, after all, is meant to
further justice, not to frustrate it."
With great respect, we find it difficult to agree with the
above observations, for firstly giving such a direction will be
clearly violating the statutory rules and secondly the mere
fact that a person's name has been included in a ranked list
does not give him any right to the post or to be appointed
to that post. See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [AIR
1991 SC 1612]. If no request is made by the State to the
2026:KER:11319
P.S.C. for advising candidates during the currency of a list,
the Court cannot compel the P.S.C. to advise candidates
after the expiry of the list." (Underline supplied)
22. In Sheejamol M.C. [2020(5) KHC 555], the Full
Bench of this Court held thus:
"10. Issues (I) & (II)
These issues can be conveniently considered together. The
question as to whether this Court will direct vacancies to be
filled up from a ranked list prepared by the Public Service
Commission, after its validity has expired, is no longer res
integra. In State of Kerala v. Sreekandan [1993 KHC 23:
1993 (1) KLT 107: 1993 (1) KLJ 401 : ILR 1993 (2) Ker. 90]
held that this was not possible, and this view got reiterated
when the petition seeking review was dismissed through
Vimalakumari (supra). This view appears to have been
consistently followed by different benches of this Court
sitting in Division. (See Balakrishnan v. PSC, Public Service
Commission v. Govindan and Kerala Public Service
Commission v. Shanil Kumar which have been referred to
above). We are therefore of the view that there can be no
direction issued to advise candidates from a ranked list
which has expired in terms of the provisions contained in
the Rules of Procedure framed by the Kerala Public Service
Commission. We are also fortified in taking this view in the
light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
Aneesh Kumar V. S. and Others v. State of Kerala and
Others (2020 SCC Online SC 398) dismissing the Civil
Appeal filed challenging the Full Bench judgment of this
2026:KER:11319
Court in Aneesh K. P. and Others v. State of Kerala and
Others (2019 (2) KHC 24 : 2019 (1) KLT 896 : ILR 2019 (1)
Ker. 775 : 2019 (2) KLJ 152). It was held:
"27. The Full Bench also took notice of the fact that
the vacancies were reported after a gap of more than
eight months on 12/07/2016 and that the last (third)
advice was made on 11/11/2015. The Full Bench
taking notice of the settled legal position, as
expounded in S. S. Balu (supra), Kerala Public Service
Commission v. Shanil Kumar, Lal Sudheer v. Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation, Secretary, Kerala
Public Service Commission v. Sheeja P. R. and Nair
Service Society v. Distt. Officer, Kerala Public Service
Commission, went on to hold that by now it is well
established that the Commission (KPSC) cannot
advise any candidate after the expiry of a Ranked List,
even to an NJD vacancy, if such vacancies.are
reported after the expiry of the list in question. We
agree with this opinion of the Full Bench."
(Emphasis is ours)
11. Then the question is whether the fact that a direction
had been issued by this Court to the appointing authority
concerned before the expiry and during the validity of the
ranked list, to report vacancies to the Public Service
Commission should result, as in Sreekandan, a direction to
the appointing authority to fill up those vacancies following
the ranking in the ranked list which has expired, on the
premise that the failure of the appointing authority to
comply with such direction, justifies it. Our reading of
2026:KER:11319
Sreekandan (supra) does not lead us to conclude that such
a direction must necessarily follow. It is true that in
Sreekandan (supra) a direction was issued to the appointing
authority (the State of Kerala in that case) to appoint four
candidates who would have been appointed had all the
vacancies been reported pursuant to the interim order
referred to in the judgment. Such direction was issued
despite the fact that the ranked list had expired. However,
we do not see any principle of law of universal application
as having been laid down in Sreekandan (supra) that such
a direction must follow in every case where there is a failure
to report vacancies in spite of a specific direction. This is
not to say that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Art.226 of the Constitution of India would not extend
to the issuance of such directions if circumstances warrant
such directions being issued. We cannot lay down any
parameters for the exercise of such jurisdiction. Whether or
not such directions need be issued will depend to a great
extent on the facts and circumstances of each individual
case. We hold that a direction as given in Sreekandan
(supra) will be issued only in exceptional cases and in the
rarest of situations where this Court comes to the
conclusion, on final adjudication of the lis, that the
appointing authority had purposefully and with mala fide
intentions failed to comply with the directions issued by this
Court. We are also of the opinion that the direction issued
in Sreekandan (supra) was not on account of the existence
of R.39 of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service
Rules, 1958 and that even in the absence of a similar Rule
2026:KER:11319
(in cases where the said Rule has no application) this Court
can, if circumstances warrant, issue similar directions".
(underline supplied)
23. In the judgment dated 12.12.2025 in W.A.No. 1191 of
2016, a Division Bench of this Court, by relying on the judgment
Sheejamol M.C. [2020(5) KHC 555], held thus:
"13. The next question to be considered is whether the
nonreporting of the vacancy by the Bank even after passing
of the interim order by this Court is vitiated by mala fides or
any other extraneous reasons. It is true that the Full Bench
in Sheejamol's case (cited supra) has held that, this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution, can issue directions for
appointment even if the rank list has expired, considering
the facts and circumstances of each individual case. But, it
also held that such a direction can be issued only in
exceptional cases and in the rarest of rare situations,
wherein it comes to a conclusion on final adjudication of the
lis, that the appointing authority has purposefully or with
mala fide intention failed to comply with the directions
issued by this Court. In the instant case, it is to be seen that
there are absolutely no materials available to show that the
Bank has purposefully or with mala fide intention, failed to
comply with the interim order passed by this Court. There
are also no specific pleadings in the writ petition to the effect
that the non-reporting of non-joining vacancy by the Bank
was with a mala fide intention or on extraneous
considerations. That apart, the learned Single Judge has also
2026:KER:11319
not found any vitiating circumstances for non compliance of
his order and on the other hand, has found that non
reporting of the vacancy was only due to the down grading
of the bank and creation of surplus staffs. Therefore, the
case in hand does not project an exceptional case or a rarest
situation wherein the Court could have exercised its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
passed the impugned judgment directing that the first
respondent be given preference, as if she was included in
the rank list of the subsequent recruitment".
(underline supplied)
24. In the instant case, the petitioners have no claim that
during the currency of the ranked list, there were unfilled reported
vacancies. So also, there is no pleading to the effect that the
appointing authority has purposefully or with mala fide intention
failed to comply with the direction in the interim order of the
Tribunal. In the light of the judgments referred to supra, it is only
to be held that since there were no vacancies reported during the
currency of the ranked list, there is no illegality in the finding
arrived at by the Tribunal.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal which warrants
2026:KER:11319
interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:11319
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 492 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure.A-1 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.
PR(1)20/2022/GP/78 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 31.05.2022.
Annexure 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANTS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT & RECEIVED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 30/05/2025
Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA WITH PROFORMA
ID.54501 DATED 09/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure.A-2 A TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST NO. 262/2022/SS V
(CAT,NO. 516/2019) W.E.F. 31/05/2022 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT 4
Annexure 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST
NO.1262/2024/SSV PUBLISHED BY THE KPSC FOR
BY TRANSFER APPOINTMENT AS LPST IN KANNUR
DISTRICT UNDER CATEGORY NO.591/2023 WITH
EFFECT FROM 12/12/2024
Annexure.A-3 A TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT REGARDING THE
VACANCY
Annexure 8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE RELEVANT
DETAILS OF VACANCY POSITION OF IDT IN KANNUR
DISTRICT FOR LPSA, AS OBTAINED FROM KITE
Annexure.A-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTRA DISTRICT DESIGNATION
WISE VACANCY LIST INTRA DISTRICT TRANSFER
2025-26 KANNUR, LPST DATED 08/04/2025
Annexure 9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
ADDITIONAL POSTS CREATED AS PER STAFF
FIXATION FOR THE YEAR 2024-25 AS OBTAINED
FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit.P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, OA
795 OF 2025
Exhibit.P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
19/05/2025 IN OA 795 OF 2025 OF THE LEARNED
TRIBUNAL
Exhibit.P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
23/05/2025 IN OA 795 OF 2025 OF THE LEARNED
TRIBUNAL
Exhibit.P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
27/05/2025 IN OA 795 OF 2025 OF THE LEARNED
TRIBUNAL
Exhibit.P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
2026:KER:11319
29/05/2025 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA
642 OF 2025
Exhibit.P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29/05/2025 IN OA 795 OF 2025
Exhibit.P-7 A TRUE COPY OF MA 1086 OF 2025 IN OA 795 OF
2025 ALONGWITH ANNEXURES.A-5 TO A-9
Exhibit.P-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
25/09/2025 IN OA 795 OF 2025
