Praseena C.P. and others v State of Kerala and Kerala Public Service Commission

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1943** **RP NO. 170 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 345/2019 OF HIGH COURT** **OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS:** - **1 PRASEENA C.P, AGED 45 YEARS D/O.C.V.PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT SASTHA COLONY, MALAMPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD-678651 (RANK NO.204).** - **2 SHIJI K.V.,AGED 43 YEARS W/O.ARUN K.A., RESIDING AT KIZHAKKAMOODAN HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY P.O., ADICHILY-CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680311 (RANK NO.198).** - **3 PRAJEESH.N.,AGED 43 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN.N, RESIDING AT NADUKKAMIDIYIL HOUSE, PYAMBRA P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571 (RANK NO.220).** - **4 LEEBA.P.,AGED 38 YEARS D/O.BALAKRISHNAKIDAVU, RESIDING AT VEHITHINAMPURATH MEETHAL, ATHOLI P.O.,CALICUT-673315 (RANK NO.181).** - **5 SEENAMOL.P.M.,AGED 43 YEARS D/O.VIJAYAN.M.V., RESIDING AT SARAYU, KOYYODE P.O., KANNUR-670621 (RANK NO.83).** - **6 MANJULA.K.,AGED 41 YEARS D/O.KARUNAKARAN.K.M., RESIDING AT MAHITHAM, PATHILAKANDAM, NILESHWAR P.O., KASARAGOD-671314 (RANK NO.76).** - **7 RAMADAS.K.C.,AGED 28 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN K.C., RESIDING AT KALATHIPAAMBIL HOUSE, VATTEKKATTUKARA, KONATHUKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR-680123 (RANK NO.WAYANAD 115).** - **8 SUDHA P.S.,AGED 42 YEARS W/O.K.V.THAMPI, RESIDING AT KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-686006 (RANK NO.EKM 213).** - **9 KAVITHA M.J.,AGED 42 YEARS D/O.JOHN.T., RESIDING AT MARAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PALAKARA, KADATHURUTHI P.O., KOTTAYAM-686604 (RANK NO.252).** - **10 SANTHOSH KUMAR P.A.,AGED 44 YEARS S/O.APPUKUTTAN C.P., RESIDING AT KAVITHA NIVAS,** **- 2 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **PATTITHANAM P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686632 (RANK NO.304).** - **11 VINEETHA G.V.,AGED 41 YEARS D/O.VENUGOPALAN THAMPI, RESIDING AT G.V.VIHAR, KODAVILAKAM, PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502 (RANK NO.416).** - **12 SHYNY S.A.,AGED 44 YEARS D/O.SADASIVAN, RESIDING AT NOUFIMANZIL, MADATHIL, POUNOKADAVU, VALIYAVELI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021 (RANK NO.403).** - **13 UNISE BASHEER.K.,AGED 31 YEARS D/O.BASHEER M.P., RESIDING AT MAYUMATTATHIL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685581 (RANK NO.171).** - **14 RAFEEK.R,S/O.ABDUL RASSOL KOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT R.R.MANZIL, ATTOOR, ADAYAMAN P.O., KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695614 (RANK NO.255).** - **BY ADVS. SRI. RENJITH B.MARAR SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SRI.ARUN POOMULLI SMT.SURABHI SANTHOSH SRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR SRI.MEERA M.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC,PSC** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** - **10.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 3 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ------------------------------------R.P.No.170 of 2021 in O.P(KAT) No.345 of 2019 ------------------------------------Dated, this the 10[th] August 2021** ## **ORDER** ## **Vinod Chandran, J.** **The review is filed, as permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure A1 order, in a special leave to appeal filed against the judgment under review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to file a review petition on any other factual aspects to be considered, not being covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Aneesh Kumar V.S v. State of Kerala [ 2020(7) SCC 301].**_ **2. The judgment under review affirmed the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) which rejected the prayer of the** **- 4 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **applicants/petitioners to extend the validity of the ranked list beyond its date of expiry, 31.08.2019. The Division Bench relied on** _**Subina v. State of Kerala [2019(3) KLT 735].**_ **3. We heard Sri. Renjith B Marar for the review petitioners and Sri. P.C Sasidharan, Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC).** **4. The claim of the petitioners in the OA before the Tribunal was to extend the period of validity of the ranked list in which they figured, which were produced at Annexures A2 to A16. The ranked lists were of candidates for the post of Lower Division Typists, in the various districts and departments which came into effect on 31.08.2016 and expired on 31.08.2019, as per Rule 13 of the KPSC Rules of Procedure, 1976. The rule provides that a ranked list would remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it is brought into force, and, after the period of one year if a new list is** **- 5 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **not published it will continue till the expiry of three years or till a ranked list is published, whichever occurs earlier. There is no new ranked list published and the subject ranked list stood expired on 31.08.2019. The O.A before the Tribunal is seen to have been filed in August, 2019, just prior to the expiry of the ranked list.** **5. The contention raised in the review is that the principle** _**actus curiae neminem gravabit**_ **(an act of Court shall prejudice no man) as enunciated in** _**Unnikrishnan Nair G.S v. State of Kerala [2019(2) KLJ 152]**_ **is squarely applicable here. The contention also is that there was a stay of appointments to the post of Lower Division Typists in the subordinateJudiciary produced as Annexure A16 in the Original Application. The review petitioners also submits that due to the rampage of cyclone-'Okhi' and the unprecedented floods, during the validity period of the ranked list, there were not many promotions carried out in the various departments, resulting in** **- 6 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **vacancies not arising in the posts to which the ranked lists were published.** **6. Before we look into the contentions raised in the review petition, we have to first notice the dictum as emanating from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Aneesh Kumar V.S**_ **which was a challenge against the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in** _**Unnikrishnan Nair G.S**_ **. The Hon'ble Supreme Court looked at Rule 13 and the first proviso to decide on whether the ranked list therein, for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police(Trainee)could be extended or not. The first proviso applied to ranked lists of candidates who are to be first admitted to a training course that leads to automatic appointment to services or posts. In such cases the ranked list as per the proviso, expires within one year from the date of its finalization or after one month from the date of commencement of the training in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one** **- 7 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **year from the date of finalization, whichever is later. It was found that the ranked list which was sought to be extended though subjected to an interim order by the Tribunal, it did not affect any appointments. The interim order of** _**status quo**_ **later passed was in the Civil Appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which stood vacated when the Civil Appeals were disposed off, again within the period of validity of the ranked list. The last batch of the empanelled candidates commenced their training on 01.05.2016 and the list ceased to exist on 01.06.2016. The Court found no application of the principles of** _**actus curiae neminem gravabit.**_ **7. In the present case, as we noticed, the ranked list came into effect on 31.08.2016 and by application of Rule 13, as distinguished from the first proviso considered in** _**Aneesh Kumar**_ **V.S; ceased to exist on expiry of three years ie, 31.08.2019. The act of court complained of by the review petitioners is at Annexure A16. Annexure A16 order was issued** **- 8 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **when the last grade employees working in Subordinate judiciary approached this Court on the apprehension that filling up of the vacancies in the post of Lower Division Typists without making by-transfer appointments would affect their chances for such consideration. The order passed at Annexure A16 on 24.09.2018 was modified by order dated 17.06.2019 whereby 50% of the 80% vacancies set apart for by-transfer appointments were directed. There can hence be no application of the principle of** _**actus curiae neminem gravabit**_ **. Further as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for PSC, there are no factual aspects averred in the memorandum of the review petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure A1 order, while reserving liberty to file a review before this Court, specifically made it conditional as to any other factual aspect remaining to be considered; which remains to be reckoned other than that on which** _**Aneesh Kumar V.S**_ **has been decided.** **8. We are of the opinion that no factual** **- 9 -** **R.P No.170/2021** **aspect has been pointed out before us to enable a review; which has not been placed on record earlier. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Aneesh Kumar V.S**_ **squarely applies in this case too and the ranked list stands expired as on 31.08.2019. There is no exceptional circumstances which would enable the extension of the validity period. The interim order pointed out, at Ext. P16, stood modified by Ext.P17 and there is no factual details proffered by the petitioners as to any vacancy having been not filled up on account of the interim order. The review petition is liable to be rejected and stands rejected.** **Sd/K. Vinod Chandran Judge** **Sd/Ashok Menon Judge** **jma/-** **R.P No.170/2021 - 10 -** ## **APPENDIX** ## **REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP © NO.23316 OF 2019. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.04.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ANEESH KUMAR V.S AND ORS V. STATE OF KERALA.**