IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/4TH MAGHA 1933
RP.No. 42 of 2012 IN WA/777/2011 -----------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.777/2011 DATED 23-09-2011 ..........................
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
------------------------------------
SAJITHA B
D/O. LATE BADARUDIN, KAMBLARA, THOLICODE VILLAGE NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.M.J.INDUJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
- REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMISSION, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. K. RAJANI,
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.V.S. KRISHNANKUTTY, VALAYIL HOUSE SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM,
NOW RESIDING AT TYPE IV/B1, NGO QUARTERS THRIKKAKARA.P.O, KAKKANADU.
5. K.P. RAJEEV
- KOTHAT HOUSE, MULAVUKAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
RP.No. 42 of 2012 IN WA/777/2011
6. M.D. SUBAIDA,.
W/O. SATHEESAN, MATTAPPALLY, EAST KADUNGALLOOR U.C COLLEGE.P.O, ALUVA-2.
7. MANOJ.R,
S/O. SRI. RAJAPPAN ACHARI, AGED 30 YEARS SIVAMANGALAM, KULANGARA BHAGOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R4 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA P. KURIAKOSE R5 BY ADV. SRI. MILU DANDAPANI R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.B. KAIMAL(SR.) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 42 of 2012 IN WA/777/2011
## APPENDIX
## REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WA 777/2011
ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27.06.1985.
ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 21.11.2011.
ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 02.12.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT GRANTING LIBERTY TO FILE REVIEW PETITION.
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.**
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 42 of 2012 IN W.A. No. 777 OF 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2012
## **O R D E R**
## **Ramachandra Menon, J.**
This Review Petition has been filed by the appellant, who lost the battle before this Court earlier, when the appeal was considered and dismissed on merits.
2. The issue considered in the appeal was whether the amendment to Rules 14 and 15 of Part II KS & SSR, substantially changing the concept of 'selection year' and the manner in which the rules of reservation/rotation are to be applied (as per Ext.P5 notification dated 08.03.2006, to be effective from 02.02.2006) has any adverse effect on the rank lists already published or whether the scope of amendment has to be restricted only to the rank lists which are published on or after 02.02.2006. A judgment was rendered by this Court on 23.09.2011 holding that the challenge raised by the appellant was devoid of any merit and accordingly interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed.
R.P. No. 42 of 2012
-:2:-
3. It is seen from the proceedings that, the review petitioner, being aggrieved of the said verdict, approached the Apex Court by filing SLP(C) No. 31734 of 2011. After arguing the case for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw the SLP with liberty to file a review petition. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. However, it was made clear by the Apex Court in the concluding paragraph as follows:
“However, it is made clear that liberty given to the petitioner to file review petition shall not be construed as a mandate of this Court to the High Court to entertain the review petition and if any such petition is filed, the High Court shall decide the same on its own merits.”
In the above circumstance, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length especially with regard to the merits and the scope of interference in the Review Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the issue is actually governed by Annexure A2 Government Order dated 27.06.1985, whereby it has been made clear that,
R.P. No. 42 of 2012
-:3:-
amendment of the recruitment rules after the date of notification will be applicable only with regard to the future selections. The said position is stated as reiterated by the Government in response to a query made by the Public Service Commission as borne by Annexure A3 Government Order dated 21.11.2011 as well. The learned counsel submits that the appellant was not at all aware of the aforesaid Government Orders and hence the same could not be brought to the notice of this Court, when the matter was finalized earlier and hence the review.
5. After considering the sequence of events and the contents of the various Annexures produced, this Court finds that, the reason stated by the petitioner as to the absence of knowledge in respect of Annexures A2 and A3 cannot be a tenable ground at all, so as to invoke the power of review by this Court. The circumstances under which such power can be exercised has been made clear by the Apex Court in umpteen decisions including the one reported in **Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury** [ **AIR 1995 SC 455** ], which bars the way.
R.P. No. 42 of 2012
-:4:-
6. Annexure A2 is dated “27.06.1985” and the circumstances mentioned therein with regard to the prospective application are discernible from paragraph 2, which is extracted below:
“2. Government have accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission and are pleased to clarify that **the changes in qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment** introduced after the issue of a notification for selection to the post by the Public Service Commission will be given effect to in future selections only, except in cases where the changes announced amount to concessions or exemptions to which persons already included in the ranked list as well as prospective candidates will be entitled and where the changes are of such a minor nature that they can be given effect to without the necessity of up setting any selection procedure under way or of revising the ranked lists already prepared.”
From the above, it is evident that the clarification given by the Government is only in respect of the **change of qualification, method of appointment, age** or **other conditions of recruitment** introduced after the issuance of the notification for selection. It also makes clear point blank that, it could only be such changes, which could be given effect to without the
R.P. No. 42 of 2012
-:5:-
necessity of upsetting any selection procedure underway or of revising the ranked list already prepared. Coming to the case in hand, the amendment made to the relevant rules, i.e.,Rules 14 and 15 is in respect of the 'selection year', which is to be applied uniformly. By virtue of the change brought about by the amendment, the same rank list is given effect to and the procedure with regard to the advice to be effected alone gets varied, which does not amount to any change in qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment. So also, coming to Annexure A3 Government Order, it is obviously with reference to the modified qualification for the post after the issuance of the notification. The qualifications were in fact revised after the notification and it was in the said circumstance, that clarification was given by the Government stating that the amendment can have only prospective operation. The above notifications have been issued in tune with the settled position of law as declared by the Apex Court that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game is started. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the said aspect, which however
R.P. No. 42 of 2012
-:6:-
does not apply to the case in hand, which stands on a different pedestal, involving the question how to reckon the 'selection year'.
As mentioned hereinbefore, the amendment was only with regard to the procedure, i.e., the selection year and never with regard to any change in the recruitment rule particularly, as to the qualifications, method of appointment, age or such other conditions governing the recruitment. This being the position, no interference is warranted on merits as well. The Review Petition fails on both the grounds and the same is dismissed accordingly.
**Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.**
**P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge.**
ttb
