High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-01-03Original petition dismissed; Tribunal’s order u...

Sayed Mohammed Anvar Thangal V.T. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No.159 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2017-01-03
Court Decision / Holding: Original petition dismissed; the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order in OA 679/2016 is upheld; the PSC’s approach to shortlisting and the final ranked list is validated.
Final Disposition: Original petition dismissed; Tribunal’s order upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sayed Mohammed Anvar Thangal V.T.
Jithesh Kumar K.
Lenisha Sreedharan

Respondents

Kerala Public Service Commission (represented by its Secretary)
The District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Malappuram
The Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Augustine Joseph
• Adv. K.S. Rockey
• Adv. Tony Augustine
• Adv. George Renoy

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P.C. Sasidharan, SC, KPSC
• Senior Government Pleader Smt. A.J. Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an OP(KAT) challenge filed by three original applicants against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order in OA No.679/2016 (dated 2 November 2016) concerning appointment by transfer to a Full-Time Hindi Language Teacher (Upper Primary) post in Malappuram district. The PSC had issued notification on 15 March 2014 inviting 15 candidates, of whom 11 attended interviews. The petitioners contended that the ranked list, published on 23 November 2015, was prepared contrary to the court’s Ravidas v. Public Service Commission precedent, which requires that the list be expanded to 3–5 times the vacancies and that cutoff marks not be used for shortlisting unless published in notification or rules. The petition sought quashing/alteration of the ranked list and expansion as per Ravidas. The Tribunal’s order dismissing OA No.679/2016 was the subject of challenge. On examination, the High Court noted Ravidas’s stance that cutoff marks cannot be used to shortlist unless published, but observed that Ravidas would permit shortlisting where numbers are very large or where the rules/notification authorize it. Here, the PSC had fixed a 20/100 cutoff and argued it was valid. The Court ultimately held there was no merit in the petition, upheld the Tribunal’s order, and dismissed the original petition, distinguishing Ravidas to the extent necessary while upholding the PSC’s actions.”

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ravidas v. Public Service Commission (2009) 2 KLT 295 (FB) – Commission cannot prescribe cutoff marks to shortlist candidates for interview unless published in the notification or in the rules governing the selection.
Doctrine of 'soul of the decision' – cautions against interpreting precedents in a way that defeats the core purpose of a decision.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the PSC acted contrary to the Ravidas principle by not expanding the ranked list to 3–5 times the vacancies and by relying on a fixed cutoff (20/100) to determine eligibility for the interview. They argued that the list should reflect a broader pool to ensure fairness and adherence to the precedent, and that the ranking should be expanded before finalization to prevent arbitrary exclusion of capable candidates.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Ravidas is distinguishable on the facts: the PSC can and did prescribe minimum marks to shortlist candidates when such cutoff is published or prescribed in rules/notification. They asserted that the notification process and the resulting list were in accordance with the applicable standards and that there is no ultravires act in shortlisting via a fixed cutoff where the rules allow it.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ravidas v. Public Service Commission	2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB)	Distinguished	The High Court distinguishes Ravidas to the extent necessary, clarifying that Ravidas cannot be read to include persons found not suitable, and that its logic on cutoff marks applies only under specific circumstances or when published in notification/rules.

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 Sayed Mohammed Anvar Thangal V.T. v. Kerala Public Service Commission 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/13TH POUSHA, 1938** ## **OP(KAT).No. 159 of 2016 (Z)** **---------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 679/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 2.11.2016** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ORIGINAL APPLICANTS:** **-------------** ## **1. SAYED MOHAMMED ANVAR THANGAL V.T.** **VALIYAKKATHODI, PONMUNDAM, MALAPPURAM-676106.** ## **2. JITHESH KUMAR K.** **KUNNATH, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121.** ## **3. LENISHA SREEDHARAN** **VALIYAKALLINKAL, MULLARNGAD, KODIKULAM VIA, IDUKKI-685607.** **BY ADVS.SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE SRI.GEORGE RENOY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------------------** ## **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** **2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERLA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM-676505.** ## **3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM-676505.** **R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT).No. 159 of 2016 (Z)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.679 OF 2016 FILED ON 17-3-2016.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 9-7-2016.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 8.8.2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 26-10-2016 OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2-11-2016 IN O.A.NO.679/2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **NIL** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE SHG/ ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Ravikumar, J.** This original petition is filed by the applicants against the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.679/2016. They had responded to a notification dated 15.3.2014 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'PSC' only) for appointment by transfer to the post of Full Time Junior Language Teacher (Hindi) in Upper Primary School, in Malappuram district. Only three vacancies were notified thereunder and 15 persons including the applicants had offered their candidature in response to the said notification and the PSC thereupon conducted an interview as part of the selection process. The petitioners alongwith 8 others attended the interview. Later, the PSC published the ranked list on 23.11.2015 with effect from that day. After its publication the petitioners filed the aforesaid original O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016 2 application mainly contending that the said ranked list was brought into force by the PSC in deviation of the dictum laid down by this court in **Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (F.B.)]** inasmuch as ranked list published by the PSC did not contain names of candidates at least thrice the number of reported vacancies. In fact, the ranked list contained the names of only 5 candidates though three vacancies were notified. Therefore it is contended that in the light of the dictum laid down in **Ravidas** 's case the PSC is bound to expand the list by 3 to 5 times of the number of reported vacancies. It is in the said circumstances that seeking such a relief that the original application was filed. The said application was dismissed as per order dated 2.11.2016 and it is mounting challenge against the said order that the captioned original petition has been filed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the PSC and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016 3 ## third respondent. 3. The question is whether the decision in **Ravidas's** case is applicable in the case on hand based on the factual position obtained in this case. In **Ravidas's** case (supra) this court held that the Commission could not prescribe cut off marks to shortlist the candidates to be called for the interview. Though the Commission could shortlist candidates where the number of candidates is very large, the criteria for shortlisting shall not be cut off marks unless it was published in the notification or prescribed in the rules governing the selection to the post or service concerned. Therefore, essentially the question is whether the decision in **Ravidas** 's case is applicable in the case on hand. We have already taken note of the factual position obtained in this case. The PSC issued Annexure A1 notification on 15.3.2014 and only 15 candidates had responded to the said notification. Out of the 15 candidates who responded to the notification only 11 candidates partook in the interview. The fact that six candidates O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016 4 including the petitioners did not secure 20% marks out of the maximum 100 marks prescribed by the PSC is not in dispute. In otherwords, it is not in dispute that the petitioners could not secure the minimum marks prescribed by the PSC in the interview. Evidently it is on the said reason that they were not included in the said list 5 candidates who participated in the interview and secured the minimum marks prescribed by the PSC and all of them were included in the list. In the light of the said indisputable factual position, we will have to consider whether the decision in **Ravidas** 's case is applicable. We have no hesitation to hold that the decision in **Ravidas's** case cannot be construed in such a manner to include persons who were found not suitable by the PSC and no doubt a contra construction would definitely defeat the very soul of the decision. A perusal of the said decision would reveal that what virtually this court held was that the Commission could not prescribe cut off mark to shortlist the candidates to be called for the interview. Nonetheless, the said decision O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016 5 would permit the Commission to shortlist candidates where the number of candidates is very large. Further, going by the said decision shortlisting could be done by prescribing cut off marks if it was published in the notification itself or prescribed in the rules governing the selection to the post or service concerned. In this case there is no case for the petitioners that the PSC prescribed the cut off marks to shortlist candidates to be called for the interview. In otherwords, the admitted position is that cut off marks was prescribed by the PSC for the interview to find the suitable candidates and for the purpose shortlisting the candidates to be called for the interview. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the PSC is entrusted with the task of selection of suitable candidates against posts borne in the cadre of any public service the selection of which falls within the purview of the PSC. Therefore, in discharge of that function if minimum marks is prescribed by the PSC in respect of a selection to find out suitable candidates it cannot be said that such an action on the part O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016 6 of the PSC is ultravires or beyond its powers. In fact, it can only be said that such a method was adopted by the PSC only to discharge its duty and to find out suitable candidates for appointment to the notified post. In such circumstances, in this case the prescription of 20 marks out of 100 cannot be said to be in violation of the decision of this court in **Ravidas'** s case. When it is evident that the petitioners could not secure the minimum prescribed marks, the action on the part of the PSC in not including them in the list cannot be said to be a decision that violates the decision in **Ravidas's** case. When that be the position, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioners based on certain other factual aspects are inconsequential and need not be gone into. In otherwords, being candidates who were found not suitable by virtue of their failure to secure the minimum prescribed marks in the interview the petitioners cannot take shelter under the decision in **Ravidas** 's case to find a place in the ranked list. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in O.P.(KAT)No.159 of 2016 7 the original petition and it is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE** Sd/- **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/