Mohanlal.G v. State of Kerala & others (WP(C).Nos. 7215 of 2013 (B) and 15075 of 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 7215 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ## -------------- MOHANLAL.G, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, R/A.CHAITHANYA, EDAVACODE SREEKARYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695017 BY ADVS.SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.V.R.NARENDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECREATRIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-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 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORP. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 15075/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7215 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: --------------------------- EXT.P1:-A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD 14/10/2008 EXT.P2:-A TRUE COPY OF QUESTION NO 1964 RAISED BY SRI V P SAJEENDRAN MLA AND THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE CHIEF MINISTER - EXT.P3:A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED AS NOTIFICATION NO RL. NO.27/13/ERIV DTD 25/1/2013 - EXT.P4:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/2/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.30/2003 DATED 1.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------ // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.7215 & 15075 of 2013 --------------------------------------Dated 26[th] August, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are rank holders in a supplementary list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short `PSC') for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator in the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Limited (for short `the Corporation'). As the claims and contentions of the petitioners are common and they have common grievances for redressal they were taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The documents are referred to hereinafter in this judgment in the manner they are set out in the former writ petition unless specified otherwise. The facts of these cases, in succinct, are as follows:- PSC had issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the aforesaid post prescribing the following qualifications in tune with the relevant recruitment rules:- “ **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 WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 2 undertaking or an industrial undertaking recognized under Companies Act.” Admittedly, 38 vacancies were notified as per Ext.P1. An OMR test was conducted on 28.5.2010. Subsequently a probability list containing the names of 791 candidates was published and those included in the list were called for verification of documents. Verification of documents was conducted on 24.5.2011 and 25.5.2011 and subsequently a ranked list was published. The main list of the said ranked list contained names of 28 candidates and 38 candidates were included in the supplementary lists for various communities. In short, after such verification of documents, only 66 candidates among the 791 candidates were found eligible to be included in the ranked list. Names of the petitioners have been included in the supplementary lists of the ranked list. The captioned writ petitions have been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the third respondent to revise Ext.P3 ranked list and to include maximum number of candidates in the main list required to fill up the existing 75 vacancies reported to the PSC by the Corporation. 2. The claims of the petitioners are founded on the following aspects:- WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 3 Though, as per Ext.P1 notification only 38 vacancies were notified 50 more vacancies occurred subsequently in the post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator under the Corporation. At present there are more than 90 vacancies available for appointment in the said post. Ext.P3 ranked list was brought into force on 22.5.2013 and taking into account the number of vacancies presently available it is only appropriate for the respondents to revamp the ranked list. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in **Ravidas** v. **Public Service Commission (2009 (2) KLT 295(F.B))** candidates thrice the notified number of vacancies should have been included in the main list and therefore, the respondents should have included more candidates in the main list of the ranked list. Essentially, the contention of the petitioners is that in view of the said circumstances, being persons included in the supplementary lists the petitioners are firstly to be brought over to the main list as part of revamping of the main list. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent in these writ petitions. It is admitted therein that in Ext.P1 notification 38 vacancies in the aforesaid post were notified. Further it is stated therein that on 30.12.2011, 37 more vacancies were reported. The decision of PSC regarding the number of candidates to be included in WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 4 a probability list is taken taking into account the existing norms fixed reckoning various aspects such as the number of vacancies reported, number of candidates advised from the previous list and the chances of occurrence of vacancies in future and such other relevant facts. Those norms were encapsulated in Circular No.30/2003. In short, according to the third respondent, the number of candidates included in a probability list is being fixed in the light of Circular No.30/2003. Admittedly, the probability list was published with 231 candidates in the main list and 560 candidates in the supplementary lists for various communities. Such a probability list was prepared with a view to fill up all the reported vacancies as also to meet the future requirements for filling up vacancies occurring during the currency of the list. Though the petitioners believed that the number of candidates in the main list was limited to 28 on account of fixation of a cut off mark the third respondent specifically submitted that no such cut off mark was fixed. The circumstances that constrained publication of the ranked list only with 66 candidates have been explained by the third respondent. A perusal of Ext.P1 notification would reveal that experience was prescribed for appointment to the aforesaid post and the prospective applicants were required to produce experience certificate in the form prescribed thereunder to prove satisfaction of the said requirement. In the main list of the probability list viz., the short list, 231 candidates were included and 560 candidates WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 5 were included altogether in its supplementary lists prepared for various communities. Indisputably, the petitioners were included only in the supplementary lists. At the time of certificate verification many candidates produced defective certificates. In other words, most of them produced experience certificates not in the manner prescribed in the Gazette notification. The acceptability of those certificates were then to be decided and for that purpose the PSC constituted a sub-committee comprising three members for a detailed examination of those applications and experience certificates. The committee decided to accept/reject the experience certificates in accordance with the notification and the general conditions. Consequently, from among 791 candidates included in the probability list, it was found that only 66 candidates had produced such experience certificates in the prescribed form. In other words, only 66 candidates produced prescribed valid documents and all such persons were included in the ranked list published for effecting appointment to the said post. From among the 231 candidates included in the main list of the short list only 28 candidates produced prescribed valid documents and therefore, they alone were included in the main list of the ranked list. In the case of the 560 candidates included in the supplementary lists of the short list, only 38 candidates produced such valid documents evidencing possession of prescribed minimum experience. Consequently, those 38 candidates WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 6 alone were included in the supplementary lists. Being persons included in the supplementary lists of short list even after the certificate verification those included in the supplementary lists of the short list can aspire and can find a place only in the concerned supplementary list of the ranked list. In other words, according to the respondents, a person who is included in the supplementary list of a short list can find a place only in the supplementary list of the ranked list and he cannot seek for his/her inclusion in the main list of the ranked list. As noticed hereinbefore, the claim of the petitioners is for revamping of the main list of the ranked list by including their names rather, bringing them over to the main list of the ranked list. Going by Rule 12 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure all the candidates interviewed and who obtained not less than the minimum marks fixed by the Commission shall be included in the ranked list prepared in the order of merit. The first proviso thereunder is to the effect that where the candidates have to be called for interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone such candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview shall be included in the short list or lists arranged in the order of merit among the candidates belonging to each class. It is thus obvious that the very purpose of preparation of supplementary lists either in the short list or in the ranked list, is to ensure that sufficient number of candidates are available for WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 7 consideration in the matter of effecting appointments following the rules of reservation. No provision has been brought to my attention which permits the petitioners to seek, as a matter of right, for coming over from the supplementary lists of the ranked list to the main list of the ranked list. Though the petitioners contended that sufficient number of candidates were not included in the probability list viz., in its main list and supplementary lists, I am not inclined to accept the same in view of the details given in the counter affidavit. A perusal of the undisputed statements in the counter affidavit regarding the number of candidates included in the main list as also in the supplementary lists of the probability list it is evident that more than thrice the number of notified vacancies were included therein. In fact, in the main list of the short list 231 candidates were included and in the supplementary lists for various communities, of the short list 560 were included. In this context, it is apposite to note that the number of vacancies notified was only 38. In view of the indisputable position obtained in this case the number of candidates included in the main list was more than thrice the number of notified vacancies and it was sufficient not only for the purpose of effecting appointments against the vacancies likely to arise during the currency of the list. Admittedly, 791 candidates were included in the probability list. The number of candidates have been shrinked to 66 only on account of the reasons referred aforesaid viz., failure on the the WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 8 part of the candidates to produce the prescribed valid documents. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that merely a candidate is included in a list that by itself will not ensure his/her inclusion in the ranked list unless he/she satisfies the requirements for inclusion in the ranked list. Obviously, the petitioners have produced prescribed valid documents and therefore, they are also included in the ranked list and being persons included in the supplementary lists of the short list they were included only in the supplementary lists of the ranked list. No provision of law has been brought to my notice by the petitioners to hold that their inclusion in the supplementary lists of the ranked list is illegal or against law. In such circumstances, inclusion of the petitioners in the supplementary lists of the ranked list invites no interference. Evidently, the number of candidates in the main list and supplementary lists of the ranked list has been reduced to the aforesaid extent not on account of any illegal action on the part of the PSC whilst only on account of the fact that out of the 791 candidates included in the probability list only 66 candidates including the petitioners, could produce the valid experience documents in the prescribed form. That is, out of 791 candidates included in the probability list only 66 candidates produced the prescribed valid documents and they alone can be included in the ranked list. There is no reason to put any blame or attribute any flaw on PSC. Solely for the purpose of inclusion of thrice the number of notified WP(C).No.7215 & 15075/2013 9 vacancies of candidates, the candidates who failed to prove possession of the prescribed minimum experience by producing certificates in the prescribed form cannot be included in the main list of the rank list and the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the decision in **Ravidas** case (supra) insists for such inclusion as well. I find no reason, legally or factually, to interfere with the action on the part of the Commission. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to uphold the arguments and contentions of the petitioners and consequently the prayer of the petitioners for a direction to the third respondent to revise Ext.P3 list and to include more candidates in the main list cannot be upheld. Consequently, these writ petitions are liable to fail and accordingly they are dismissed. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS