OP(KAT) NO. 286/2021

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ## **`OP(KAT) NO. 286 OF 2021`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/8/2021 IN OA (EKM) NO.485 OF 2021 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS(1-3)/RESPONDENTS 11 TO 15:`** ``` 1DR.VRINDHA K.V AGED 28 YEARS D/O.P.VENUGOPALAN, KARUYAATTU HOUSE, KOPLIPADAM, VELLIKULANGARA, PADY.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680699. 2DR.HITHA SHYAM.M.S, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.SUDHAKARAN.M.T, MANNIL THODIKAYIL, KAKKODI, CHELANNUR, PALATH, KIZHAKKUMURI.P.O, KOZHIKKODE, PIN- 673611. ``` ``` 3DR.THASNEEM.P.P, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.P.K.PAREED PILLA, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPADY, EDATHALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683561. 4ADITHYA.S.R, AGED 25 YEARS D/O.RAJU.K, SANTHI BHAVANAM, MANCODE.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN-689694. ``` ``` 5VINCHU.V.S, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.G.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, VSV VILLA, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVUR.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN-691301. 6ASWATHY S.THAMPAN, AGED 30 YEARS ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ``` D/O.SUDHEER KUMAR.G, AMMOOS, PERAYAM, MULAVANA.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN-691503. 7ABHIRAMI.D.S, AGED 29 YEARS DO.DILIP.D.S,SANTHIMA, PAPPALA, KILIMANOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695601. ``` ``` 8DEVIKA.P.S, AGED 26 YEARS D/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, KALLARATHALA PUTHEN VEEDU, RAMAPURAM, ARALUMOODU, ATHIYANNUR, KODUNGAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695123. BY ADVS. P.K.IBRAHIM SREEJI K.B. FATHIMA FIDHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10 & 16 TO 18:`** - **`1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION KPSC OFFICE, THULASI HILL, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.`** - **`2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AAYUSH DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001, KERALA.`** - **`3 THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, AROGYA BHAVAN, P.B.NO.182, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001, KERALA.`** - **`4 JOSE SHIFFIN, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.MARIA CHARLES K.J, 66/261C, KOMAROTH HOUSE, CHITTOOR ROAD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682012, KERALA.`** - **`5 VANDANA.C, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.CHANDRAN.C, IDAVANA VEEDU, THRIKKANNAPURAM,`** - **`P.O.POODOE, PATHAYAKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN-670691, KERALA.`** ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:3:-`** - **`6 ARYA RAVINDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS`** - **`D/O.RAVINDRAN, MACHANGALATH HOUSE, KOZHIKODE ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680503, KERALA.`** - **`7 ARYA MOHAN, AGED 25 YEARS`** - **`D/O.MOHANAKUMAR.A, ARYA NIVAS, KALLARA ROAD, NEAR MATHOOR RAILWAY GATE, TRIPUNITHURA NADAMA VILLAGE, EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682306.KERALA.`** - **`8 JYOTHILAKSHMI.K.H, AGED 25 YEARS`** - **`D/O.HALIN KUMAR.K.V, KIZHAKKEKARAMOOTTIL, GURU PRASANTHAM, V.A.THOMAS ROAD, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682010, KERALA.`** - **`9 PARVATHY REJI, AGED 27 YEARS`** - **`D/O.REJI.K.R, KOCHU KOLLERIL HOUSE, T.V.PURAM.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686606, KERALA.`** - **`10 GAYATHRI BEJOY, AGED 25 YEARS`** - **`D/O.BEJOY, MANU VIKAS, THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN-691571, KERALA.`** - **`11 ARYA.A.V, AGED 25 YEARS`** - **`D/O.VIJAYA KUMAR, A.V.VILLA, SAKTHIPURAM ANAD.P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695541, KERALA.`** - **`12 PARVATHY.R.S, AGED 26 YEARS`** - **`D/O.G.RAJENDRAN, ARAMAM, THYCAUD, PIRAPPANCODE.P.O, MANIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695607, KERALA.`** - **`13 ARAVI K.ANAND, AGED 28 YEARS`** - **`S/O.K.K.SUGUNANADAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARYAD SOUTH, AVALUKUNNU.P.O, KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN688006, KERALA.`** ``` BY ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC ``` ``` THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2024, THE COURT ON 15.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:4:-`** ``` A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, ACG. C.J & S.MANU, J. ``` ``` ------------------------------------------------ ``` ## **`O.P.(KAT).No.286/2021`** ``` ------------------------------------------------ ``` ``` Dated this the 15[th] day of July, 2024 ``` ## **`J U D G M E N T`** ## **`A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C.J.`** The petitioners approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, aggrieved by the extension of the rank list published by the Public Service Commission for the post of Medical Officer (Siddha) in the Indian System of Medicine. The rank list came into force on 14/02/2018 and was due to expire on 13/02/2021. However, it was extended to 04/08/2021. As a result of this extension, eight vacancies were reported to the Commission on 01/03/2021. These posts were created by the Government only on 25/02/2021. ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:5:-`** 2. The challenge was on the ground that the PSC could not have considered the eight posts created subsequently after the expiry of the validity of the rank list for the issuance of the advice memo. According to the petitioners, this resulted in the denial of opportunities for those who aspire for public employment. The Tribunal repelled the challenge. This is how the petitioners approached this Court. 3. The PSC, by a notification dated 05/02/2021, issued a general direction to extend the validity of rank lists that would expire between 05/02/2021 and 03/08/2021. This was on the ground of COVID pandemic afflicted on the people in the State, particularly, those aspiring for public employment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the 5th proviso to Rule 13 relating to the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure would submit that the PSC has the power to extend the validity of rank lists further only for vacancies that existed during the original validity period of the rank list. This means that the PSC can advise candidates during the extended period of the rank list only for vacancies that arose on or before 13/02/2021 in this ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:6:-`** case. The rank list in this case was originally due to expire on 13/02/2021. The petitioners would contend that since all 8 vacancies were created subsequent to the expiry of the original period of rank list, that is on 25/2/2021, PSC could not have advised candidates for such vacancies which were created subsequent to the expiry of the original period of rank list. 5. It is appropriate to refer 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure which reads thus: Provided further that if the Commission is satisfied of the existence of a period of general ban declared by the Government on the reporting of vacancies to the Public Service Commission or of any other circumstances or of any extraordinary situation in which the reporting of vacancies by the Appointing Authority is prevented or restricted or delayed, the Commission shall have the power to keep alive the Ranked Lists which are normally due to expire during the said period for such periods as may be decided by the Commission subject to a minimum period of three months or for such further periods but not exceeding one and a half year in the aggregate. If the Commission so decides it shall issue a notification keeping alive the ranked lists in the above manner and shall advise candidates from such ranked lists to the vacancies reported during such extended period of validity of the Ranked Lists. 6. There cannot be a dispute regarding the PSC's power to extend the period of a rank list in light of the 5th proviso. There are ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:7:-`** three circumstances under which the PSC can exercise this power: (i) based on a ban declared by the Government on the reporting of vacancies, (ii) any other circumstances, and (iii) extraordinary situations where the reporting of vacancies is prevented or restricted or delayed. Relying on situations (i) and (iii), the argument raised by the petitioners perhaps appears meritorious when it relates to vacancies that arose or were available during the original period of the rank list. However, the second situation, "any other circumstances," covers vacancies created after the expiry of the original rank list. If the provision is read in its entirety, it becomes evident that the intention of the rule-making authority was to allow the PSC to issue advice for all vacancies available during the extended period as well. It might not have been feasible for the Government to create those posts during the original period of the rank list due to the same reasons that prompted the PSC to extend the period of rank list. Such a scenario justifies the appointing authority to report such vacancies created subsequent to the expiry of the original rank list. 7. We do not find any arbitrariness in the exercise of power by the PSC, as the PSC has only acted upon the vacancies reported by the ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:8:-`** Government. It is up to the Government to decide whether such vacancies will be reported to the PSC or not. As long as the Government's actions are not arbitrary, this cannot be questioned by third parties who are only aspiring for public employment. 8. The petitioners have no locus standi to question the extension of the rank list by the PSC. In service matters they do not have the right or locus standi to challenge the PSC's decision as they did not apply for the post. Merely having the chance to apply for public employment in the future does not itself confer the right or authority to challenge such a decision of the PSC. ## 9. In _**R.K. Jain v. Union of India**_ **, [(1993) 4 SCC 119]** , it was held that: In service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the offending action. Third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the petitioner, a publicspirited person. ## 10. In **State of Punjab v Salil Sabhlok and others [(2013)** **5 SCC 1],** the Supreme Court has followed the law laid down in **R.K. Jain** (supra) and held that third party has no locus standi to canvass ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:9:-`** the legality or correctness of the action and further relying upon the matter of **B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2)],** has held that a third party and a complete stranger cannot approach an Administrative Tribunal to challenge the appointment of Chairperson of the Punjab Public Service Commission, and the writ of quo warranto to be maintainable. In light of the above discussions, the original petition stands dismissed. Sd/- **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,** **ACTING CHIEF USTICE** Sd/- **S.MANU, JUDGE** ms ``` OP(KAT) NO. 286OF 2021 ``` ## **`-:10:-`** ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 286/2021`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.485/2021 OF`**| ||**`THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,`**| ||**`ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM`**| |**`Annexure A1(EXT.P1)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED`**| ||**`10.03.2016 IN CATEGORY NO.12/2016 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`THE 1ST RESPONDENT`**| |**`Annexure A2(EXT.P1)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.133/18/OLE`**| ||**`IN CATEGORY NO.12/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE PSC`**| |**`Annexure A3(EXT.P1)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTED IN THE`**| ||**`ONLINE NEWS DAILY THE HINDU ON 03.02.2021`**| |**`Annexure A4(EXT.P1)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER`**| ||**`G.O.(MS)NO.7/2021/AYUSH DATED 25.02.2021`**| ||**`CREATING 8 POSTS OF MEDICAL OFFICERS`**| |**`Annexure A5(EXT.P1)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED`**| ||**`27.02.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.(EKM)NO.723/2021 FILED`**| ||**`FOR IMPLEADING IN THE O.A.`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.(EKM)NO.777/2021`**| |**`Annexure A6(EXT.P3)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED`**| ||**`21.04.2021`**| |**`Annexure A7(EXT.P3)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`**| ||**`08.02.2021`**| |**`Annexure A8(EXT.P3)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`**| ||**`05.05.2021 RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT`**| ||**`NAMELY DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF`**| ||**`MEDICINES TO ONE SREEKANTH.C.R`**| |**`Annexure A9(EXT.P3)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE`**| ||**`APPOINTMENT CHART MAINTAINED IN THE WEBSITE`**| ||**`OF THE PSC`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY IN EXT.P1 O.A.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY`**| |**`R1(A)(EXT.P4)`**|**`THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED`**| ||**`05.02.2021`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.2021`**| ||**`DISMISSING OA (EKM)NO.485/2021.`**|