Jubeena Beegom & Ajaya Ghosh v. Kerala Public Service Commission and KSRTC and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 JUBEENA BEEGOM AGED 43 YEARS D/O. NAZEEMA BEEVI, AAMIS ,PLAVOOR, AMACHAL P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572. 2 AJAYA GHOSH AGED 37 YEARS S/O.APPU.K., KANNAN NIVAS, KALLUTHATTU VEEDU, ARUMANOOR,POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525. BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2 SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 3 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023 4 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023 **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **2** 5 SHEENA STEPHEN JC HUSE, KILIYOOR, VELLARADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 505. 6 SANU SADAN, VINEESH BHAVAN, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM691504. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN DEEPU THANKAN SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI DEEPU THANKAN SC KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3210/2021, 11840/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 9.8.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 3210 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SANU SADAN JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KSRTC, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O.THIRUVANANTHAAPURAM695 023. - 2 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. - 3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. - 4 SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. **4** ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** 5 AJAYA GHOSH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O APPU K, KANNAN NIVAS, KALLUTHATTU VEEDU, POOVAR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525. BY ADVS. DEEPU THANKAN SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.7.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15441/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 9.8.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11840 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MANJU.V.S., ASSISTANT,OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV R.GOPAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,EAST FORT.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC,PUNALUR DEPOT,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4 SMT.SANU SADAN, VINEEDH BHAVAN,KUNDARA,PERUMBUZHA.P.O, KOLLAM-691504. BY ADVS. DEEPU THANKAN SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15441/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 9.8.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **6** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 38614 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P. SREEKUMAR, S/O.LATE P.PONNAPPAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT, KSRTC DEPOT KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN- 686691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ONELIKKUDY HOUSE, CHERUKUNNAM, ASAMANNOOR P.O., PIN683549, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV A.K.GOPALAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |1|SECRETARY,| |---|---| ||KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O., PIN- 695004,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |2|THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,| ||KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., PIN- 695023,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.| |3|ASSISTANT TRANS PORT OFFICER,| ||KSRTC DEPOT, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN- 686691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.| |4|JUBEENA BEEGUM,| ||JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KSRTC CENTRAL WORKS, PAPPANAMCODE, PIN-| ||695018, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.| |5|AJAYAGHOSH A.S.,| ||JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KSRTC, POOVAR DEPOT, POOVAR P.O., PIN-| ||695525, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.| |6|ADDL R6, KERALAL ROAD TRANSPORT COROPORATION,| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,TRANSPORT| ||BHAVAN, EAST FORT.P.O PIN 695 023, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| ||DISTRICT.| ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **7** 7 ADDL R7, RAJITHAKUMARI.P.C. PUTHENPURA, PUTHAKUNNU, PUTHANKUNNU P.O, PIN 673 595 WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADDL R6 AND ADDL R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30-10-2019 IN IA 2/2019 8 ADDL R8, BINDU R.S. JUNIOR ASSISTANT KSRTC, PATHANAPURAM P.O PIN 689 695 KOLLAM DISTRICT 9 ADDL R9, PRABHEED. K.R. ADMINISTRATION SECTION, KELTRON, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O, PIN 695 033 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL R8 AND ADDL R9 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 30-10-2019 IN IA 5/2019. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR DEEPU THANKAN SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SHRI.ASIF N P.GOPINATH (SR.) K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM K.PARVATHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.7.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15441/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 9.8.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **8** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petitions (WP(C) Nos.38614 of 2018, 11840 of 2019, 15441 of 2020 and 3210 of 2021), involve identical prayer are decided together. All the petitioners in these four writ petitions are aggrieved of the rank list dated 3.4.2018 published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC)for the post of Administrative Officer in KSRTC. 2. The facts in brief in all the writ petitions are that on advice of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation KSRTC, PSC caused a gazette notification dated 15.11.2013 under category no.398/2013 for appointment of Administrative Officers by fixing the last date as 18.12.2013. The qualifications prescribed for the post were as follows: Post Graduate in any discipline; Five years of experience in Administrative Cadre in a Government owned Company/Corporation. Note I: The experience should be one acquired after the acquisition of the basic qualification. **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **9** II. The Administrative Officer selected directly shall execute a BOND with corporation in stamp paper valued 100/- (Rs. One hundred only) that they will serve the corporation for a period of five years and an undertaking to refund the entire remuneration received during training in the event of resignation/relinquishing from the post before the end of agreement period. 3. The age limit published was 18-35, candidates born between 2.1.1978 and 1.1.1995 were eligible to apply for the post. Petitioner in WP.(C) No.38614 of 2018, P. Sreekumar (General Category) in view of the rank list sought placement on the 7[th] rank in the Rank list on account of the fact that candidates at 7[th] and 8[th] rank did not have requisite years of experience. Though 7[th] and 8[th] rank holders ie., Jubeena beegom and Ajayghosh A.S belonged to Muslim and Ezhava community respectively. Jubeena beegom and Ajayghosh are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15441 of 2020 have sought directions to the respondents to exclude the name of Sheena **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **10** Stephen at Rank No.1 and Sanu Sadan at Rank No.2. 4. Manju V.S at Rank No.11, who belonging to Ezhava community in W.P.(C) No.11840 of 2019 has sought deletion of ineligible rank given to Sanu Sadan Rank No.5 from Ext.P3, Rank List. 5. Sanu sadan, in W.P.(C) No.3210 of 2021 has sought indulgence when confronted with the show cause notice by KSRTC and PSC with regard to the allegation of forged experience certificate and also on the premise that services rendered by him as Store Issuer and Store Assistant are the ministerial posts and therefore his experience was more than five years, whereas, as per the allegation and the counter filed, the experience of Junior Assistant with effect from 7.10.2011 would be considered and therefore he would not fulfil 5 years of experience. 6. The pith and substance of the arguments of the respective counsels were are that only seven (7) vacancies were to be filled up. counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **11** No.15441 of 2020 submitted that the first petitioner has been offered appointment. Now the writ petition survives only on account of the petitioner No.2 ie., Ajaya Ghosh, whose rank was at Sl. No.8. Before I could deal with the arguments of the respective counsels it would be expedient to extract the rank list. The same reads thus: Ranked List No.283/18/SSVI Cat. No.398 /2013 |Rank|Sl.<br>No.|Name|Test|Int.|Wtg<br>.|Total|DOB|Commy|Remarks| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|2|SHEENA STEPHEN|54.33|13||67.33|25.5.1977||| |2|6|APARNA<br>SIMPLE<br>SANAL|50.33|11||61.33|31.5.1978|SC-CHERMAR|| |3|3|ESTHER S P|39.67|12||51.67|38.4.1981||| |4|4|AMBAKLIKA J B|39.33|10||49.33|24.3.1980|SC-SAMBAVAR|| |5|9|SANU SADAN|38|10||48|06/10/82|EZHAVA|| |6|13|JISHI S|35.67|12||47.67|16.4.1980|M-MUSLIM|| |7|1|JUBEENA BEEGOM<br>N|35.33|12||47.33|21.5.1977|M-MUSLIM|| |8|8|AJAYA GHOSH A.S|29|12||41|25.5.1984|EZHAVA|| |9|15|SREEKUMAR P|24|13||37|28.4.1984||| |10|17|RAJITHAKUMARI P<br>C|24.67|11||35.67|02/04/78|SC-PATHIYAN|| ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **12** |11|5|MANJU V S|23.67|11||34.67|31.5.1979|EZHAVA|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |12|14|SIJO JOSE|23.67|10||33.67|01/02/83||| |13|11|ABHILASH|19.33|12||31.33|30.5.1978||| |14|12|BINDHU R S|18.33|12||30.33|31.5.1979|EZHAVA|| |15|7|PRABHEED K R|16.33|13||29.33|18.4.1984|SC-VANNAN|| |16|16|REGY BHAI S|10.67|13||23.67|27.2.1973|EZHAVA|| ||||||||||| ## SUBMISSIONS 7. **Jubeena Beegom and Ajaya Ghosh** ie, Rank Nos. 7 and 8 were empanelled employees and could not claim continuity in service as they are on daily wages and there was no service records. Their experience certificate was not as per the norms prescribed in the notification and as per the information received under the RTI Act, they completed 4 years and few days of service. 8. The respondents rebutted the arguments by filing counter on the premise that the certificate issued by KSRTC and the appointment letter would show that they have been **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **13** discharging same kind of services as rendered by regularly appointed Junior Assistants and there had not been any break of service and worked throughout the year on all working days and were sponsored by employment exchange. 9. Manju V.S, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11840 of 2019 in support alleged that she was appointed under Dying in Harness Scheme and had been a permanent employee as Junior Assistant since 30.1.2006 with more than 12 years experience. She belongs to Ezhava community whereas Ajaya Ghosh A.S at Sl.No.8 also of Ezhava community. Sanu Sadan did not have five years of experience. But now point of consideration arises whether the petitioner V.S Manju seeking to jump over Ajaya Ghosh A.S, at rank list No.8 in place of Sanu Sadan whose advice though has now been cancelled if upheld by this Court would able to secure such rank or not. 10. Ajaya Ghosh A.S, 2[nd] petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15441 of 2020 has also made allegations against Sanu Sadan, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3210 of 2021, by impleading **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **14** as 6[th] respondent whereas 5[th] respondent was Sheena Stephen in whose place Jubeena Beegom has already been given employment, on the similar grounds of having not five years of experience and was thus eligible to be appointed as he belonged to Ezhava category. The entire controversy revolves around the adjudication of the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 3210 of 2021 titled as Sanu Sadan v. KSRTC and Ors. He stood at rank No.5 belonging to Ezhava. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sanu Sadan, petitioner submitted that he was initially appointed as conductor on 11.2.2002 and on 11.8.2004 was granted a category change as Store Issuer and joined on 18.8.2004. She was promoted to Store Assistant on 8.12.2009 and joined on 9.12.2009. The probation in the post completed satisfactorily with effect from 14.12.2010. Thereafter, was appointed to the category of Junior Assistant by transfer. Appointment was on the advice dated 7.10.2011 issued by the Public Service Commission and joined duty as Junior Assistant **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **15** on 5.12.2011. The duties discharged by the petitioner as of a Store Keeper belongs to a ministerial cadre, previously known as Administrative cadre. The petitioner thus has more than 12 years experience in the Administrative cadre like Store Issuer, Store Assistant and Junior Assistant, if taken together and this fact is fortified from the experience certificate dated 13.3.2017, Ext.P1. It is on that basis, the petitioner was included in the rank list and stood at Sl.No.5. PSC issued an advice on 22.1.2019 but so far no appointment has been made. On account of the fact that connected writ petitions as noticed above were filed. It was also contended that in W.P. (C) No.34224/2018, this Court vide order dated 28.10.2019, Ext.P2 disposed of the writ petition by giving following directions: “The petitioners are included in the rank list prepared by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for appointment as Administrative Officer by direct recruitment. The vacancies were reported to the PSC. The KPSC advised the petitioners. 2. It is to be noted that the vacancies in the cadre of Administrative Officers were directed to be filled by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23331/2017, subject to the filling up of such vacancies by the PSC candidates. The said writ petition was filed by in-service candidates. It **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **16** appears that pursuant to the direction of this Court, certain inservice candidates were promoted. Anyhow, ratio has to be maintained amongst direct recruitment, promotion and by-transfer appointments. This Court today dismissed the writ petition (W.P.(C) No.3484/2019) filed by the in-service candidates who were provisionally promoted to the post of Administrative Officers. The said writ petition was filed challenging the PSC rank list. This WP(C).No.34224/2018 4 writ petition was filed by the persons who are included in the PSC rank list. In that view of the dismissal of the writ petition, any provisional promotees who are holding the vacancies of direct recruitment will have to be reverted for accommodating PSC candidates. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners 1 to 6 have already been advised. That be so, there may not be a difficulty for KSRTC to issue appointment order based on such advice against any vacancies earmarked for direct recruitees, if necessary, by reverting such persons, who were provisionally promoted. If there are any provisional promotees occupying the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, KSRTC shall revert and accommodate such persons who have already been advised. Needful shall be done within a period of one month. The writ petition is disposed of as above.” 12. In the meantime, Executive Director Vigilance issued a show cause notice dated 16.11.2020 which was based on the understanding that the experience certificate submitted before the PSC was a forged one. The aforementioned show cause notice, Ext.P3 was replied by an explanation dated 27.11.2020, Ext.P4. No order was passed. ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **17** However in the meantime, a show cause notice dated 23.11.2020 was issued by PSC, Ext.P5 which was duly replied vide explanation dated 10.12.2020, Ext.P6. It was categorically refuted that there was no misconduct on behalf of the petitioner. Certificate Ext.P1 was issued by a competent authority ie., Assistant Transport Officer, KSRTC. 13. During the course of the argument, photo copies of the relevant Appendix of agreement dated 13.4.1999 entered into between the employees and KSRTC has been produced. An attempt has been made that the entire Store staff are under the ministerial category and therefore show cause was actuated on false premise. 14. The aforementioned contention was refuted by learned counsel for the respondent saying that the Appendix to the agreement would not help the petitioner as per the details regarding mode of appointment, qualification prescribed for each post describing the ministerial post. None of the post of Store staff has been brought under the **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **18** category of the ministerial except Store Assistant. In view of the decision of the Board of Directors, KSRTC promulgated regulations ie., KSRTC (Qualification and method of appointment of Higher Division Officers] Regulations 2012 defining the ministerial branch wherein none of the staff from Store has been prescribed and only the post of Chief Personnel Manager/Manager Accounts, Personnel Manager/Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Personnel Officer/Accounts Officer and Administrator included in that category. At the date of the notification the petitioner had only 1 year 11 months and 10 days of service. Store wing employees were never engaged in any administrative duties as mode of appointment, qualification and promotion posts were different from that of the employees like Superintendent, Assistant who deal with the administrative functions and thus cannot be considered as a Administrative Cadre employees. Even a disciplinary action was initiated against the person responsible for such bogus certificate and **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **19** in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner did not submit the experience certificate. It was found that there was no record available in the KSRTC, Punalur office from where the petitioner obtained the certificate. No copy of the order or direction indicating the post of Store issuer and Store Assistant to be considered as a Administrative cadre has been placed on record. In fact certificate issuing authority wrongly entered Junior Assistant instead of Administrative Cadre. In this view of the matter, petitioner requested to pass an order to cancel the disciplinary action as contemplated under Rule 22 proviso iii & iv of the KPSC Rules of Procedure. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the Commission decided to finalise the decision by removing the name of the petitioner from the rank list. The aforementioned power is derived as per Rule 3(c) of KS&SSR Part II. At the time of issuance of advice to the petitioner, the Commission was not aware that the experience certificate was a fake one. **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **20** 15. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP. (C) No.3210 of 2021 cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others (2007) 8 SCC 644** to_ contend that the unsuccessful candidates do not have _locus standi_ to challeng the appointment of the petitioner, on the ground that he did not have requisite administrative experience. The locus Standi of such candidate was deprecated in the aforementioned cited case. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. It would be apt to reproduce Regulations which have been approved by the Government vide order dated 8.11.2012, the same reads as under: ## **REGULATIONS** 1. **Short title and commencement.** - (1)These Regulations may be called the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Qualification and Method of Appointment of Higher Division Officers) Regulations, 2012. (2) It shall come into force at once. **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **21** 2. **Definitions.** -In these Regulations unless the context otherwise requires; 'Corporation' means the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation established under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950), with Headquarters at Transport Bhavan, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 023, 3. **Constitution.** The Corporation Higher Division Officers service shall consists of the following branches and categories of officers,namely: ## BRANCH-I. **Operating Branch.** Category (i) Chief Traffic Manager Category (ii) Chief Traffic Officer Category (iii) District Transport Officer Category (iv) Assistant Transport Officer ## BRANCH-II, **Ministerial Branch.** Category (i) Chief Personnel Manager / Manager (Accounts) Category (ii) Personnel Manager / Deputy Chief Accounts Officer Category (iii) Personnel Officer/ Accounts Officer Category (iv) Administrative Officer 17. On perusal of the same, the post of Administrative Officer has been considered as Ministerial ie., equivalent to Junior Assistant but not of Store Assistant or Store issuer. Concededly, the petitioner Sanu Sadan joined as Joined Assistant on advice of PSC with effect from 5.12.2011 and on **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **22** the date of the notification in 2003 had 1 year 11 months and 10 days of service. Therefore he did not fulfil the condition of five years experience as prescribed in the notification for filling up the post of Administrative Officers. The controversy do not stop here. Petitioner has not been able to place on record any material and the information reported to have been taken under RTI Act with regard to the record of issuance of experience certificate Ext.P1, for, as per the counter of the respondent, instead of Administrative Cadre wrongly entered as Junior Assistant. It is in that background the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by KSRTC as well as KPSC. PSC is governed by its own rules and procedures and Rule 22 has the power to take a decision for removing or retaining the name of the candidates from the rank list. Petitioner failed to prove on record any material regarding veracity and authenticity of the certificates as the specific pleading with regard to the fact that no record was available in KSRTC, Punalur Office where **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **==> picture [15 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the certificate had been issued from. It is intriguing that the said certificate was not backed by any record and therefore its veracity is under shadow. Petitioner cannot be permitted to rely upon an agreement entered into between the KSRTC and the employees dated 13.4.1999 an Appendix I whereby, Store Staff included in the Ministerial staff whereas the Regulations aforementioned have the sanctity and moreover, particulars provided to this Court regarding the details of the mode of appointment and qualification prescribed for each posts, item Nos.1 to 5 have been brought under Ministerial cadre ie., up to the post of Superintendent and rest of the posts have not been considered under Ministerial cadre as the post of Superintendent is the feeder category to the Administrative Officer. There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment referred(supra) but it was held that High Court was not justified in interfering with the appointment on account of having not possessed the requisite administrative experience of 10 years ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **24** while working as an x-ray technician. But in the instant case as noticed above, the certificate which had a foundation for bringing the petitioner Sanu Sadan in the rank list at Sl.No.5 has been found to be forged and fake one. Fraud cannot be permitted to be perpetuated with impunity. Any order, decree or appointment taken by playing fraud or on the basis of forged documents can be challenged and taken care of which has been done in the present case by issuing show cause notices and rightly so, the advice issued in 2019 has been recalled. The averments in the counter with regard to the non availability on the record of certificate has not been rebutted. If at all rebutted would have been a disputed questions of fact, also those documents would have been subject to mode of proof in accordance with law. Since the petitioner belonged to a category of Ezhava and Ajaya Ghosh, second petitioner in WP.(C) No.15441 of 2020, who also belonged to Ezhava would be the appropriate candidate for being considered in his place at Sl.No.5. But not Manju ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **25** V.S, who is far behind i.e. at Sl.No.11. Thus the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11840 of 2019; Manju V.S would not have any force to claim appointment over and above Ajaya Ghosh. 18. As regards the plea of Sri.P. Sreekumar in W.P.(C) No.38614 of 2018 regarding Jubeena Beegom and Ajaya Ghosh's experience being an empanelled employee, it is a matter of record that both the employees were registered with the employment exchange and their appointment on daily wages was on the recommendation of the employment exchange and nature of the duties were similar to that of regular employees. They worked entire week. It is settled law that the person discharging the same kind of duties are liable to pay same pay by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work thus, the claim of Sri.P.Sreekumar, for excluding the period of empanelment when the Jubeena Beegom and Ajaya Ghosh discharged the duties cannot be considered and hereby rejected. Accordingly all the writ **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **26** petitions, except WP(C) No.15441 of 2020 being pursued by second writ petitioner ie., Ajaya Ghosh, are dismissed. W.P. (C) No.15441 of 2020 is allowed. Sri. Ajaya Ghosh is directed to be promoted in place of Sanu Sadan because of the fact that as per the roster, Sl.No.5 is belonged to Ezhava. PSC is further directed to issue advice to the KSRTC for issuance of appointment order. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ## **SD/-** sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **27** ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3210/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC PUNALUR IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2019 IN WPC NO 34224/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO VLC1-021034/2020 DATED 16.11.2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 27.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO CR1(1) 6992/13/CW DATED 23.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE PSC - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 10.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PSC EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO CR(1) 6992/13/CW(1) DATED 21.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE PSC ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **28** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11840/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PSC NOTIFICATION VIDE CATEGORY NO.398/2013,PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 15.11.2013. - EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH SERVICE DETAILS ISSUED ON 27.12.2016 BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,KSRTC,NEYYATTINKARA. - EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.283/18/SSVI PUBLISHED IN THEIR WEBSITE OF KPSC ON 3.4.2018. - EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.38614/2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT - EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.1.2019. - EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.4.2019 EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11-4-2019 IN WPC NO-11849/2019 - EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6-4-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P9 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 10-7-2019 OF THE SUPERINTENDANT OUT AUDIT DEPARTMENT KOLLAM **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **29** THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3-82019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC EXHIBIT P10 INFORMATION OFFICER OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 204-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-12019 IN WPC NO-34244/18 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE (M.A IN LITERATURE FROM KERALA UNIVERSITY), PERTAINING TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT **30** ## **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38614/2018** PETITIONER EXHIBIT EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PSC NOTIFICATION VIDE CATEGORY NO.398/2013, PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 15.11.2013. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH SERVICE DETAILS ISSUED ON 23.12.2016 BY ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 25.09.2017 ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY HALL TICKER VIDE REGISTER NUMBER S.102407 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF KPSC. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.283/18/SSVI PUBLISHED ON 03.04.2018 IN THE WEBSITE OF KPSC. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM UNDER RTI DATED 13.07.2018. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY UNDER RTI VIDE LETTER NO.P.I.O.NO.1590/18 DATED 10.08.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OT THE INFORMATION OFFICER KSRTC, PUVAR UNDER RTI VIDE REQUEST DATED 14.05.2018. **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **31** EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.G-2/06/2018/PVR. DATED 23.05.2018 OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, POOVAR, THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.PL-12/1738/14 DATED 28.05.2014 0F THE MANAGER ACCOUNTS IN CHARGE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION BY ORDER OF CHAIRMAN AND M.D OF THE CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.05.2018 FILED BEFORE KPSC BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART WITH IT'S ENCLOSURES VIDE FILE NO.RIB (2) 4975/2018/GW CATEGORY NO.398/2013 DATED 22.1.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SULTHAN BATHERI AS PER RTI ACT DATED 14.5.2018 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERI VIDE NO.GL-1/1798/18 SULTHAN BATHERI DATED 12.6.18 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF QUERIES AND REPLY UNDER RTI VIDE LETTER NO.R1,A/1224/19/PTPM DATED 23.5.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF QUERIES AND REPLY UNDER RTI VIDE LETTER NO.KSEDC/RTI/2019/2019/53 DATED 13.6.2019 OF THE INFORMATION OFFICER, KELTRON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.38614/18 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.4.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.38614/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P19 TURE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C No.34224/18 DATED 28.10.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** ## **32** RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL 1/009876/2006 DATED 7.11.2017 OF THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER IN CHARGE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, POOVAR. EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1.622/2011/PVR DATED 18.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, POOVAR. EXHIBIT R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1/2152/2010/PVR DATED 24.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, POOVAR. EXHIBIT R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1/7189/09/PVR DATED 14.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, POOVAR. **WP(C) NO. 15441 OF 2020 and conctd. cases** **33** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15441/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.11.2013 FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN K.S.R.T.C.BY P.S.C EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST WITH EFFECT FROM 3.4.2018 PUBLISHED BY P.S.C EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST OF MINISTERIAL STAFF OF K.S.R.T.C IN WHICH THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.6 FIGURE AS SL.NO.1003 WHICH IS NIL DATED RESPONDENT EXHIBITS R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS DATED 11.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE PSC R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13TH APRIL, 1999 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SERVICE & PAY AGREEMENT OF 2008 ISSUED BY KSRTC ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION R6(c) TRUE COPY OF EPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 28.9.2017 PERTAINING TO RANK NO.14 IN EXT.P2 RANKED LIST.