Mohanlal G. S/o Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/19TH POUSHA, 1938 WA.No. 1491 of 2013 (Q) IN WP(C).7215/2013 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7215/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26-08-2013 APPELLANT : PETITIONER IN THE W.P.: ------------------------------- MOHANLAL G. S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHAITHANYA, EDAVACODE, SREEKARYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695017. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAMESH SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P. ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., P.B.No.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. - R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORP R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2017, ALONG WITH WA. 1493/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, CJ. & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------------W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of January, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K.Narendran, J.** The appellant in W.A.No.1491 of 2013 is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.7215 of 2013 and the appellants in W.A.No.1493 of 2013 are petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 7 to 9 in W.P.(C).No.15075 of 2013. The appellants, who are rank holders included in the supplementary lists for various communities prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, have approached this Court in those writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Public Service Commission to revise Ext.P3 ranked list dated 25.10.2013 and include maximum number of candidates in the main list required to fill up the existing 75 vacancies reported to the Commission. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 26.8.2013, dismissed both the writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved by the W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 2 judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants are before this Court in these writ appeals. 2. We heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the writ appeals, learned Senior Government Pleader representing the 1[st] respondent State, learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent Corporation and also learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Commission. 3. The pleadings and material on record would show that the Public Service Commission issued Ext.P1 notification dated 14.10.2008 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator in the 2[nd] respondent Corporation. The number of vacancies notified in Ext.P1 is 38. The qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1 notification reads as under; “ **Qualifications** : (i) BA/BSc/BCom or equivalent 3 years degree awarded by a recognized university. (ii) Three years experience in programming and Computer Operations under a Public Sector undertaking or an industrial undertaking recognized under Companies Act.” W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 3 4. As per Ext.P1 notification, the experience should be one acquired after obtaining the academic or other basic qualification; that the experience should be one obtained from the institution mentioned in para.21 of the General Conditions of Gazette Notification; and that the experience certificate shall be in the form prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. It has also been provided in Ext.P1 that the veracity of the experience will be subjected to scrutiny and those who issue or produce bogus certificate will be subjected to legal proceedings. The experience certificate obtained from private institutions should be attested by one authorised officer of the State/Central Government. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the Public Service Commission conducted OMR Test on 28.5.2010 and published a probability list, shortlisting 791 candidates. Those candidates were called for verification of documents, which was conducted on 24.5.2011 and 25.5.2011. Thereafter, the Commission published Ext.P3 ranked list on 25.1.2013 which contains the names of 28 candidates in the main list and 38 candidates in the W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 4 supplementary list for various communities. In short, after verification of documents, only 66 candidates among the 791 shortlisted in the probability list were found eligible to be included in the ranked list. Admittedly, the names of the appellants are included in the supplementary lists for various communities. 6. Ext.P1 notification was in respect of 38 vacancies already reported to the Commission. Thereafter 37 more vacancies were reported on 30.12.2011. After conducting OMR test, the Commission published the probability list shortlisting of 231 candidates in the main list and 560 candidates in the supplementary lists for various communities, taking into account the existing norms fixed in Circular No.30/2003, such as the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, the chances of occurrence of vacancies in future and such other relevant factors. Accordingly, the appellants were included in the supplementary lists for various communities. W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 5 7. At the time of certificate verification, the experience certificates produced by most of the candidates included in the probability list were found to be defective. Most of the candidates produced experience certificate not in the manner prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. In order to decide the acceptability of those certificates, the Commission constituted a Sub-Committee comprising 3 members for a detailed examination of those applications and experience certificates. The said Committee decided to accept/reject the experience certificate in accordance with Ext.P1 notification and the General Conditions. Consequently, from among 791 candidates included in the probability list, it was found that only 66 candidates have produced experience certificates in the prescribed format and all such candidates were included in Ext.P3 ranked list. From among the 231 candidates included in the main list of the probability list, only 28 candidates produced valid documents and therefore, they alone were included in the main list of Ext.P3 ranked list. In the case of 560 candidates included in the supplementary lists of the W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 6 probability list only 38 candidates produced valid documents and therefore, they alone were included in the supplementary lists for various communities in ranked list. 8. Therefore, the indisputable position obtained in this case is that the number of candidates shortlisted in the probability list was more than thrice the number of notified vacancies, which was even sufficient for the purpose of effecting appointments against the vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the ranked list. However, the number of candidates qualified in terms of Ext.P1 notification became 66 on account of the failure on the part of the candidates in producing experience certificates in terms of the said notification. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the number of candidates in the main list and the supplementary list of Ext.P3 ranked list has been reduced to the aforesaid extent not on account of any illegal action on the part of the Public Service Commission but only on account of the fact that out of the 791 candidates shortlisted in the probability list, only 66 candidates could produce experience W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 7 certificates as prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. 9. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Ajayan v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 854)** , the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the action of the Public Service Commission in publishing Ext.P3 ranked list consisting only lesser number of candidates in the main list is patently illegal. In **Ajayan's** case (supra) this Court directed the Public Service Commission to consider the anticipated vacancies also and then re-fix the number of persons to be called for interview on the basis of the directions of the Apex Court in **State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh (AIR 2003 SC 4580)** . The Public Service Commission was directed to assess the vacancies that may arise during the currency of the ranked list in a reasonable manner and short-list the candidates at least three times the number of vacancies in the order of merit without fixing cut off marks and complete the formalities. 10. In the case on hand, the probability list published by the Public Service Commission consists of 791 candidates, out of W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 8 which 231 candidates were included in the main list of the probability list and 560 candidates in the supplementary lists of the probability list. However, only 66 candidates included in the probability list could be included in Ext.P3 ranked list as the remaining candidates produced experience certificates not as prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. Out of the said 66 candidates, those included in the main list of the probability list and secured upto 24 marks were included in the main list of Ext.P3 ranked list and the appellants herein, who were included only in the supplementary lists of the probability list and secured marks below the said benchmark were included in the supplementary lists in the said ranked list. The appellants could not be advised for appointment because of the reason that the main list of Ext.P3 ranked list exhausted before the candidates included in the supplementary lists could be advised for appointment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly declined interference on a finding that there is no reason, legally or factually, to interfere with the action on the part of the 2[nd] respondent W.A.Nos.1491 & 1493/2013 9 Commission and that the appellants are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in this appeal. In the result, these writ appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** skj/10.1.2017 True copy P.A to Judge