Anil Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission and District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANILKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, 'KARTHIKA', MUTHANA P.O., CHEMMARUTHY, PALAYAMKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NETTARAVILAKAM VEEDU, PALAVAPURAM, CHERUNIYOOR P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695142.** **BY ADVS.R.GOPAN P.M.SANEER SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN CODE-695004. 2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN CODE-695004.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **27.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who has been included in Ext.P2 Rank List prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), for appointment to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the erstwhile District Co-operative Banks, impugns Ext.P4 Show Cause Notice, issued to him by the PSC on 24.06.2022, proposing his removal from the said Rank List for the reason that he was not a party to the writ petition, which culminated in the judgment of this Court in _**Sathydevan v. Public Service**_ _**Commission**_ [2008 (1) KLT 289 (F.B.)], which was then confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through Ext.P3 judgment. 2. Sri.R.Gopan – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that there was no occasion for his client to have approached this Court prior to this writ petition, because he ## **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-3-** was allowed to write the test by the PSC themselves; and in fact, admittedly, included in Ext.P2 Rank List. 3. Sri.R.Gopan explained that, in _**Sathydevan**_ (supra), the learned Full Bench only said that the benefit of writing the test and being included in the Rank List will be confined to those persons who had approached this Court and not to others - the notification being dated 25.04.2006, and resultantly their failure to have done so can only be seen to be on account of laches. He argued that, however, in the case of his client, he had already been allowed to write the test and therefore, that he obtained no cause to have approached this Court, especially when his name was subsequently included in the Rank List. He asserted that, therefore, Ext.P4 – which says that his client's name cannot be continued in Ext.P2 Rank List ## **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-4-** solely because he had not approached this Court at the time when _**Sathydevan**_ (supra) was decided - is not merely illogical, but preposterous. 4. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, on the other hand, submitted that Ext.P4 was issued by his client only because _**Sathydevan**_ (supra) made it clear that the inclusion in the Rank List would be available only to persons who had approached this Court at that time. He concluded his submissions saying that since the petitioner had never approached this Court until this writ petition was filed, he is guilty of laches and therefore, that his inclusion in Ext.P2 Rank List becomes untenable. 5. When I hear Sri.P.C.Sasidharan on the afore lines, I must say that the stand of the PSC cannot appeal to me because, as rightly argued by Sri.R.Gopan, it is only if the ## **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-5-** petitioner's application had been rejected in the year 2006 or 2007 and had he been denied the opportunity to write the test, could he have had approached this Court. However, since the PSC thought it fit – for whatever be the reason – to allow him to write the test and to include him in the Rank List, one fails to gather how the PSC now says that he ought to have approached this Court nevertheless. 6. Of course, I am aware that the answer of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan to the afore is that the petitioner was allowed to write the test based on a “general interim order” of this Court in another case. However, I do not see any such order on record; and, in any case, one fails to understand the purport of the submission of the PSC that the petitioner was granted the benefit of a “general interim order” in another writ petition filed by someone else, though he had ## **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-6-** not approached this Court. 7. That apart, even going by Ext.P2 Rank List, the petitioner has been included therein provisionally, but subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition against _**Sathydevan**_ (supra). There is no mention therein – even whisperingly - that the petitioner's inclusion in the Rank List provisionally, because he had not approached this Court at the time when _**Sathydevan**_ (supra) was delivered. Surely, therefore, the petitioner's rights, on account of such inclusion, would depend singularly upon the view to have been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court **==> picture [411 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** Ext.P3, confirming _**Sathydevan**_ (supra). 8. In summation, this Court fails to fathom how the PSC now says that the petitioner's name, though included in the Rank List, will require ## **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-7-** to be removed solely because he had not approached this Court earlier at the time when _**Sathydevan**_ (supra) was delivered. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P4 and direct the PSC to initiate and complete consequential action, adverting to Ext.P3 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I conclude this judgment making it clear that the directions issued herein are on the facts and circumstances impelled by the petitioner; and hence, that they will apply to him and no one else. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-8-** ## **To be spoken to on 29.09.2022** This matter has been listed today for being spoken to at the request of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel, who submitted that at the time when it was delivered, it was omitted to be brought to the notice that the vacancy position in the erstwhile District Co-operative Bank is still under review. I do not think that I require to speak upon this specifically because through the exercise as ordered in the judgment, the PSC will be entitled to act as per law. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 23506 OF 2022** **-9-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23506/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 25/04/2006. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 31/05/2010. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/09/2021 OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1802-1806 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE**