Narayanan U.K. v. State of Kerala, Public Service Commission, District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Deputy Director of Panchayats Kozhikode

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Judgment Date: 2012-12-03
Court Decision / Holding: Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

NARAYANAN U.K., AGED 47 YEARS VADAKKANAKANDI VEEDU, MUZHIPOTH P.O. MEPPAYOOR VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
Public Service Commission represented by its Chairman, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission Kozhikode - 673 020
Deputy Director of Panchayaths Kozhikode - 673 020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Mohanakannan
• Smt. A.R. Pravitha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Viju Thomas
• Sri P.C. Sasidharan, SC, KPSC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5, which cancelled his appointment as Last Grade Servant in the Panchayat Subordinate Service following discovery that he had applied in two districts (Kozhikode and Kannur) and was included in the Kannur rank list, though he was eventually appointed in Kozhikode. After notification restricting candidature to a single district and after the PSC advised him to the Kozhikode post, adverse material emerged from Kannur. The petitioner explained via Ext.P3 that he did not attend Kannur interview and only learned of the Kannur inclusion later; nonetheless, Ext.P4 (18/05/2000) cancelled his appointment and Ext.P5 (26/06/2000) issued consequential orders. He pursued remedies, including Ext.P6 (2007), which related to a later representation before the People’s Common Programme; however, the court notes the delay and the long lapse between Exts.P4/P5 and Ext.P6. The PSC contends there was no valid ground for relief, emphasizing the notification and binding precedents. The court ultimately finds no subsisting cause of action, highlights the stale nature of the claim, and cites Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India to support non-interference. The writ petition is dismissed, underscoring the discretionary nature of Article 226 petitions and the importance of timely, actionable challenges to personnel decisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Stale cause of action

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Exts.P4 and P5 cancel his appointment after he was selected and that the earlier two-district notification and his inclusion in the Kannur list were not a valid ground to cancel; he argues that he explained via Ext.P3 and that Ext.P6 correspondence demonstrates ongoing attempts to redress the grievance. He seeks quashing of Exts.P4 and P5 and restoration of appointment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner violated the notification by applying for two districts, that the Kannur inclusion was known and later found to be inconsistent; Exts.P4 and P5 were valid; there was no subsisting cause of action since the challenge is stale and the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others	AIR 1970 SC 470	Positive	Cited to support the principle that a petition cannot be entertained for stale or subsisting actions; the court relies on this decision to reject the petition on ground of delay and lack of continuing remedy.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 28769 of 2012 (U) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **NARAYANAN U.K., AGED 47 YEARS VADAKKANAKANDI VEEDU, MUZHIPOTH P.O. MEPPAYOOR VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIOIN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION KOZHIKODE - 673 020.** **4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS KOZHIKODE - 673 020.** **BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU THOMAS BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **stu** ## **WP(C).No. 28769 of 2012 (U)** **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-2700/99 DATED 13/07/1999 ISSUED by the DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.D. 11(6) 1739/99(7) DATED 20/03/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 23/03/2000.** **EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2 (6) 1739/99 DATED 18/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-2700/99 DATED 26/06/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1 4747/2007 DATED 13/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/11/2009 IN W.A 2575/2009** **EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTERS** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE.** **stu** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 28769 OF 2012** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3[rd] day of December , 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings, whereby the advice given by the PSC in favour of the petitioner for appointment as Last Grade Servant in the Panchayat Subordinate Service came to be withdrawn, as a result of which, the petitioner came to be ousted from the service. 2. The factual position as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner, in response to the notification dated 1.10.1996, applied for the post in question from Kozhikode district and on finalising the process of selection, he was included in the selection list. Later, he came to be advised to the post and accordingly the petitioner commenced his service in Kozhikode district. In the due course, it was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, that the petitioner had also applied for a similar post in Kannur district as well and he was in fact selected and called for the interview. On confronting with the W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 2 factual position as per Ext.P2 show cause notice, the petitioner sought to explain the position as per Ext.P3 representation dated 23/03/2000 pointing out that, though the petitioner was called for interview in Kannur district, he did not attend the interview and that he came to know about his inclusion in the list only recently and requested not to cancel his appointment. As the explanation was not satisfactory, the third respondent passed Ext.P4 order dated 18.05.2000 cancelling the appointment given to the petitioner, based on which, the fourth respondent issued the consequential order, as borne by Ext.P5 order dated 26/06/2000. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, who submits that the petitioner had questioned the course and proceedings by filing necessary proceedings before the fourth respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P6 intimation given on 13/07/2007, though the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority, the matter is still to be finalised and hence before this Court. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submits that, the petitioner has approached this Court with a stale cause of action and W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 3 further that there is absolutely no merit as well. It was specifically made clear in the notification itself, that no candidature of any candidate would be entertained, if he/she applies for selection in two different districts and that the application had to be confined to the selection for the post in any particular district. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for two different districts, namely Kozhikode and Kannur and came to be included in the rank list. The petitioner was given appointment in Kozhikode district and the adverse circumstance in respect of the application and selection in respect of the Kannur district came to the notice of the concerned authorities much later, leading to Ext.P3, P4 and P5 proceedings. The learned standing counsel further submits that, by virtue of the specific terms of the notification and also the binding judicial precedents on this point, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings, which are under challenge by way of Exts.P4 and P5 are dated 18/5/2000 and 26/06/2000 respectively. Pendency of the proceedings, if at all any, pursuant to Ext.P6 dated 13.07.2007 cannot be an enabling ground for the petitioner to sustain the challenge. That apart, Ext.P6 itself reveals 4 W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 that the petitioner submitted the application in Peoples' Common Programme, which was the basis for issuance of Ext.P6, that too, on 1.6.2007 i.e. seven years after passing Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner took another 'five' years to approach this Court, after issuance of Ext.P6, stating that the matter is still to be finalised. This Court finds that the petitioner does not have any subsisting cause of action, which can be entertained by this Court by way of this writ petition. Apart from the absence of merits, it also remains a fact that the petitioner was simply sleeping on an 'arm chair' without any regard to his grievance, which cannot be redressed now by this Court, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds support from the decision rendered by the Apex Court in **Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others** (AIR 1970 SC 470). Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 5 W.P.(C)No.28769/2012 6