High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed; PSC's selection process upheld.

Rajesh K.K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WA No. 810/2008; WA No. 1043/2008; WA No. 1112/2008

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • J.B. Koshy
  • P.N. Ravindran
Judgment Date
2008-06-26
Court Decision / Holding
The appeals are dismissed; the Division Bench upholds the PSC’s discretionary selection process and declines to extend opportunities to lesser-qualified candidates given the sufficiency of qualified applicants.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed; PSC's selection process upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rajesh K.K.
  • M.C.Rajeev
  • Biju Xavier T.
  • Prasad P.S.
  • Rajitha K.K.
  • BinoY M.B.
  • Jose Urmese
  • Maya T.S.
  • Gopakumar P.G.
  • Noushad K.A.
  • Sasikumar C.K.
  • Joby P.J.
  • Prakasam T.T.
  • Karthikeyan K.K.
  • Sabu T.V.
  • Babu K.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Survey and Land Records Department, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director of Survey & Land Records, Vazhuathacadu, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Smijo V.K., S/o Kunjipalu, Vadakkumbadan House, Ananadu P.O., Chalakudy (Via), Thrissur District
  • Sunil Narayanan, S/o A.V. Narayanan, Ambattuparambil House, Thuravoorm Post, Pullani, Ankamaly, Ernakulam District
  • Abhilash C.T., S/o Thankappan, Cheruvelil Puthenpura, Neriyamangalam, Ernakulam District
  • Sunildas S.V., S/o Varghese, S.V. Nivas, Ernakulam District
  • Sherif, S/o Haneefa, Achathani, Thenkurusi P.O., Palakkad District
  • Additional Respondents 9-12: Mathew K.T., Abdul Khader B.C., Sidheeque.K., Muhammed Shabeer Chakkkittupureth
  • Additional Respondents 13-19: Sunil Kumar V.P., Rajesh.P.N., Shafeek.M.K., Siddheeque.K., Muhammed Shabeer, Sunil.C.K., Abdul Gafor.C.M.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sajan Varghese K.
  • • Liju M.P.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Benny Gervacis (Adv.); Alexander Thomas (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeals project a challenge to the Public Service Commission’s notification for the post of Surveyor Grade II and the subsequent selection process. The appellants argue that Rule 12A(ii) of the Rules of Procedure empowers the PSC to prepare one or more rank lists and to consider candidates with lower qualifications when the number of suitably qualified applicants is inadequate. They rely on Ajit Kumar v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 55 SN Case No.80) to contend that such lower-qualification candidates should be given due consideration, especially where the number of applications far exceeds the available vacancies. The PSC and respondents counter that the rules confer discretionary power to call for candidates with the prescribed qualifications, and that the respondents acted in accordance with that discretion given the overwhelming number of eligible applicants versus the limited vacancies. The petitioners emphasize the broad publicity, the large number of applications (over 9,000), the actual test attendance (approximately 3,666), and the notified vacancies (295 with anticipated total up to 525). The single Judge’s view that the PSC’s approach was justified is affirmed by the Division Bench, which notes that in the presence of a substantial pool of qualified candidates, extending opportunities to lesser-qualified applicants is not warranted. The appeals are dismissed, and the PSC’s selection process is upheld.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 12A(ii) of the Rules of Procedure (Public Service Commission)General Rules - Part II – Schedule (qualification standards)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that Rule 12A(ii) of the Rules of Procedure authorizes the PSC to prepare one or more rank lists and to consider candidates with lower qualifying credentials if there are insufficient candidates with the prescribed qualifications. They urge that the PSC should exercise discretion in light of the number of applications (nearly 9,000) and the actual test attendance (around 3,666), as well as the vacancy position, which suggests room for considering candidates with alternate lower qualifications. They rely on Ajit Kumar v. State of Kerala to argue that the spirit of the rule and the need for a broad and inclusive selection process should guide PSC orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Rule 12A(ii) vests discretionary power in the PSC to prepare rank lists and to call candidates with the prescribed qualifications. They emphasize that a large pool of well-qualified applicants existed and that the vacancies were limited (295 notified plus anticipated vacancies up to 525). They argue that PSC’s discretions were exercised to ensure merit and efficiency, and that extending opportunities to lesser-qualified candidates would unnecessarily dilute the standard where qualified candidates are ample.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ajit Kumar v. State of Kerala1987 (2) KLT 55 SN Case No.80PositiveCited to support that Rule 12A(ii) is a discretionary provision rather than a mandatory mandate, and that the PSC may exercise discretion in framing rank lists depending upon the number of qualified applicants.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rajesh K.K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930** **WA.No. 810 of 2008()** - **---------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29451/2006 Dated 21/02/2008** **....................** ## **APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS** - **--------------------------------------** **1. RAJESH K.K., S/O K.P.KESAVAN, KARIPPATHARA HOUSE, MELOOR POST, CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2. M.C.RAJEEV, S/O LATE M.K.CHELLAPPAN, MOOSARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRVALLOOR, ALANGAD P.O., ALUVA (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. BIJU XAVIER T., THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, CHULLY POST, EREPPU, ANGAMALY (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. PRASAD P.S., PATTATH HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **5. RAJITHA K.K.,** - **KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, MELOOR POST POOLANI, CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **6. BINOY M.B., MALAYENKUDI HOUSE, MELOOR POST, POOLANI, CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **7. JOSE URMESE, MUTTENTHOTTIL VEEDU, PARIYARAM P.O., CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **8. MAYA T.S., THANDATHI VEEDU, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ELLITHODU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **9. GOPAKUMAR P.G., S/O P.N.GANGADHARAN NAIR, PUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **W.A. NO.810/2008** **10. NOUSHAD K.A., KARIMPILCHIRA HOUSE, CHENGALAM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **11. SASIKUMAR C.K., MUNJULLIMALIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPAIKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **12. JOBY P.J., THEKKUDAN HOUSE, VENGINISSERRY, PARALAM POST, THRISSUR DIST.** ## **13. PRAKASAN T.T.,** **THACHAUMPURATHU HOUSE, PADINJARE VEMBALLUR, EDAVILANGU POST, S.N.PURAM, THRISSUR DIST.** ## **14. KARTHIKEYAN K.K.,** **KUNNATHU HOUSE, P.O.VEMBALLUR, KODUNGALLORE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **15. SABU T.V.,** **THACHUMPURATH HOUSE, VEMBALLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **16. BABU K.,** **KARIPPALI HOUSE, THALASSERRY POST, DESAMANGALAM (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P** ## **RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. SMIJO V.K., S/O KUNJIPALU, VADAKKUMBADAN HOUSE, ANNANADU P.O., CHALAKKUDY (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **5. SUNIL NARAYANAN, S/O A.V.NARAYANAN, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR POST, PULLANI, ANKAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **W.A. NO.810/2008** ## **6. ABHILASH C.T., S/O THANKAPPAN, CHERUVELIL PUTHENPURA, NERIYAMANGALAM POST, COLONY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **7. SUNILDAS S.V., S/O VARGHESE,** - **S.V.NIVAS, EANTHIKALA, ARAYOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **8. SHERIF, S/O HANEEFA, ACHATHANI, THENKURUSI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## ***ADDL R9 TO R12 ARE IMPLEADED** ## **ADDL. R9. MATHEW K.T., KOOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VILANGAD.P.O., KALLACHI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **ADDL. R10.ABDUL KHADER B.C., BAVATTIPALIL HOUSE, PANNIKKOTTUR.P.O., KODUVALLY VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **ADDL. R11.SIDHEEQUE.K., KAZHAYIKKAL HOUSE, CHERUVADI.P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **ADDL. R12.MUHAMMED SHABEER CHAKKITTUPURETH, CHAKKITTUPURETH HOUSE, CHERUVADI.P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ***ADDL. R9 TO R12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/06/2008 IN I.A. NO.370/08.** ## ****ADDL. R13 TO R19 ARE IMPLEADED** **ADDL. R13. SUNIL KUMAR V.P., VAYOLIPURAYIL HOUSE, KARAYATHANKAVU.P.O., KOZHIKODE.** ## **ADDL. R14. RAJESH.P.N., PULICKAL HOUSE, EACHOME.P.O., PANAMARAM, WAYANAD.** ## **ADDL. R15. SHAFEEK.M.K., NELLIYOTIE HOUSE, KARIYATHANKAVU.P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE.** ## **ADDL. R16. SIDHEEQUE.K., KAZHAYIKKAL HOUSE, CHERUVADI.P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE.** ## **ADDL. R17. MUHAMMED SHABEER, CHEKKITTUPURATH, CHEKKITTUPURATH HOUSE, CHERUVADI.P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE.** **W.A NO.810/2008.** ## **ADDL. R18. SUNIL.C.K., KALLANGAPOYIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY.P.O., KOZHIKODE.** ## **ADDL. R19. ABDUL GAFOOR.C.M., CHETHIL MEETHAL HOUSE, PUNNASSERY.P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE.** ****ADDL. R.13 TO R.19 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/06/2008 IN NO. I.A.589/08.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC - R3** **SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN – ADDL.R9- 15** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1043 OF 2008, WA NO. 1112 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. --------------------------------------------------W.A. No. 810, 1043 and 1112 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008** ## **Judgment** ## **Koshy,J.** Appellants in these cases applied for the post of Surveyor Grade II in pursuance to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. Qualification prescribed for the above post is as follows: "(1) A pass in S.S.L.C. examination or possession of any of the other equivalent qualification specified in the schedule to Part II of the General Rules. (2) Must possess:- (i) I.T.I. (Surveyor Trade) Certificate introduced with effect from the year 1966; or (ii) The I.T.I. (Surveyor Trade) Certificate issued prior to the year 1966 and satisfactorily completed six months inplant training according to the rules approved by the Board of Revenue in this regard; or (iii) A pass in Surveying and Levelling (Higher) M.G.T.E. or K.G.T.E. with Chain Survey Test; or 2 **W.A.No. 810, 1043 & 1112/2008** (iv) Experience in Military service for a period of six years in Surveyor trade; Provided that in the absence of candidates with the technical qualifications mentioned above, a pass in Higher Survey Test shall be deemed sufficient: Provided further that in the absence of candidates with any of the technical qualifications mentioned above, a pass in Chain Survey Test shall be deemed sufficient." Petitioners are candidates who passed chain survey test. According to the petitioners considering the spirit of rule 12A (ii) of the rules of procedure, candidates with lower alternate qualification prescribed for the post also shall be considered as held by this court in Ajit Kumar v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 55 SN Case No.80). The above rule is only for guidance and not mandatory. It is for the PSC to consider the same depending upon the number of applications received and depending upon the number of vacancies. It is submitted that large number of applications were received pursuant to the notification. Total eligible applications received from persons other than candidates having alternate lower qualification prescribed (like that of the appellants) was more than 9000. Number of candidates who actually attended the test was 3666. 3 **W.A.No. 810, 1043 & 1112/2008** Notified vacancy was only 295. It is also stated that total number of vacancies inclusive of the anticipated vacancy before the expiry of the list is only 525. Even excluding diploma and degree holders who applied within the first four mandatory qualifications prescribed are 3057, that is, more than six times of the required personnel. Under rule 12A discretionary power is vested on the PSC to prepare one or more rank list depending upon the circumstances of each case. Considering the number of applications received from the well-qualified candidates, the learned Judge held that the stand adopted by the P.S.C. was fully justified. Only if sufficient candidates as mentioned in (i) to (iv) are not available, the question of calling the other candidates will arise. If number of candidates applied with prescribed qualifications are not sufficient PSC in its discretion can call for the candidates with lesser qualification prescribed. Here, the position was different. We are of the view that the learned Judge was perfectly justified as sufficient number of qualified candidates have applied and, therefore, question of calling persons who are lesser qualified need not arise. It is submitted that such persons were called for the test in earlier years. That depends upon the number of qualified candidates applied in pursuance of the notification issued and that cannot 4 **W.A.No. 810, 1043 & 1112/2008** be treated as a precedent. It is further submitted that few persons who came with writ petitions much before the test was conducted were allowed to write the test. The test was conducted in 2006. Regarding the date of the test, wide publicity was given and few similarly placed persons who were not called for the interview approached this court before the interview. Without going into the merits, some candidates were allowed to write the test by the interim order. That will not entitle the petitioner to ask for a direction to the P.S.C. to cancel the test already conducted and conduct another test or a separate test for the petitioners/appellants as qualified candidates were available in sufficient number. Question of considering the persons like petitioners will arise only if qualified candidates are not available. In the above circumstances, we fully agree with the view of the learned single Judge and appeals are dismissed. **J.B.Koshy Judge** **P.N.Ravindran Judge** vaa **W.A.No. 810, 1043 & 1112/2008** 5 6 **W.A.No. 810, 1043 & 1112/2008** ## **J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ.** ------------------------------------W.A.Nos.810, 1043 and 1112 of 2008 ------------------------------------- **Judgment** Dated:26th June, 2008