High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-09-27Disposed with directions to consider Ext.P5 and...

Subramanian K.E. vs Kerala Public Service Commission and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2012-09-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed by directing the PSC to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months; merits not decided; the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment with IA 12869/2012 containing Ext.P5 before PSC for further steps.
Final Disposition: Disposed with directions to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders within two months; no adjudication on merits

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subramanian K.E., Pukkattumukal House, Edathala North. P.O., Aluva-683 564
Sreenadh. S., Sivanivas, Ponakam, Mavelikkara, P.O., Alappuzha-690 101
Shaji Lal.C.G., 'Makam', Parandoode, Parandoode P.O., Arayanad Via., Thiruvananthapuram-695 542
Sunil. O., Oruvingal House, Parappanangadi, P.O., Malappuram-676 303
Sreekumar. D., Saji Bhavanam, Edakulannagaram P.O., Karunagappally, Kollam Dist

Respondents

Kerala Public Service Commission, represented by the Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004
Kerala State Financial Corporation, represented by the Managing Director, KSFC, Thrissur-680 001
Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by the Secretary, KSEB, Vyadhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by the Chairman and Managing Director, KSCC Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Kochi-20
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, represented by the Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
Kerala State Financial Enterprises, represented by the Managing Director, KSFE, Thrissur-680 020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• R1: P.C. Sasidharan, Senior Counsel, KPSC
• R2: M.M. Sayed Muhammed, Senior Counsel
• R3: K.S. Anil, Senior Counsel
• R4: Millu Dandapani, Senior Counsel
• Addl. R5: Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Senior Counsel
• Addl. R6: Antony M. Ambat, Senior Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges the Kerala Public Service Commission's (KPSC) refusal to publish an additional ranked list for the posts of Assistant Grade II, Clerk, Junior Clerk, LDC, and Cashier in government-owned companies/boards. The petitioners rely on Ext.P1 (ranked list) and Ext.P2 (appointment chart) to argue that vacancies and eligibility require a fresh notification or continuation of the ranking process. Ext.P5, a representation dated 15/03/2012, is pressed for consideration within a reasonable time. The respondents, PSC and others, counter that the matter is governed by earlier judicial dicta, notably W.P.(C) No. 34344/2010 (decided 04.07.2011) and the law laid down in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission (2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB)), arguing there is no remediable cause of action for a further list and that the present case is not applicable to those authorities. After hearing, the Court finds no prejudice in acceding to the petitioner's grievance and directs the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months. The Court clarifies that it has not expressed conclusions on merits and that the PSC may decide independently. The petitioner must bring a copy of the judgment along with IA No.12869/2012 containing Ext.P5 before the PSC for further steps.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P1 provides a ranked list and Ext.P2 shows the appointment chart; Ext.P5 contains a representation for fresh action. They urge the Court to direct publication of an additional rank list and to consider Ext.P5 within a reasonable time, arguing that statutory and constitutional mandates justify a fresh notification and that prior judgments (W.P.(C) No.34344/2010 and Ravidas) either are not applicable or require consideration of Ext.P5.

Contentions of Respondents

The PSC and respondents contend that the petition is misdirected and relies on authorities that are not applicable; they reference the verdict in W.P.(C) No.34344/2010 and Ravidas to argue that there is no remediable cause of action for a new list. They urge that the court should not direct any fresh publication and that the matter should be decided in light of the earlier judgments.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
W.P.(C). No.34344/2010	W.P.(C) No.34344/2010	Distinguished	The court states that the issue decided in this case is not applicable to the present matter.
Ravidas v. Public Service Commission	2009(2) KLT 295 (FB)	Distinguished	The Full Bench Ravidas decision is not applicable to the present case.
W.P.(C) No. 22828/2009	W.P.(C) No. 22828/2009	Mentioned Only	Referenced as EXT.P3; not discussed in the judgment.

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 Subramanian K.E. vs 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/5TH ASWINA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J) --------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **1. SUBRAMANIAN K.E., PUKKATTUMUKAL HOUSE, EDATHALA NORTH. P.O., ALUVA-683 564.** **2. SREENADH. S., SIVANIVAS, PONAKAM, MAVELIKKARA. P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 101.** **3. SHAJI LAL.C.G., 'MAKAM', PARANDODE, PARANDODE. P.O., ARAYANAD VIA.,** - **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542.** **4. SUNIL. O., ORUVINGAL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI. P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 303.** **5. SREEKUMAR. D., SAJI BHAVANAM, EDAKULANAGARA. P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,** **KOLLAM DIST.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.** **RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,** **KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 001.** **3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,** **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J)** **4. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. H.O., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20.** ## *** ADDL. R5 & R6 IMPLEADED** **5. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,** **KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.** **6. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES,** **THRISSUR – 680 020.** - **ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.01.2012 IN IA. NO.771/2012.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SC.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB.** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC.** **ADDL. R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, KSRTC. ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT GR.II/ CLERK/JUNIOR CLERK/L.D.C./CASHIER IN GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES/CORPORATION/BOARDS. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART PUBLISHED BY THE PSC IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/10/2010 IN W.P.(C)NO. 22828/2009. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 17/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 7692 OF 2011** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27[th] day of September , 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers : i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to publish an additional ranked list for the post of Assistant Gr.II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LDC/Cashier in Government owned Companies/Corporations/Boards in continuation with Ext.P1; ii) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The prayers are vehemently opposed by the Public Service Commission stating that the averments and the allegations stated in the writ petition do not keep the right track of truth and it is virtually against the law declared by this Court. The learned counsel for the first respondent/PSC seeks to rely on the verdict passed by this Court on 04.07.2011 in W.P.(C)No.34344/2010 and submits that nothing further survives and there cannot be any remediable cause of action for the WPC.No.7692/2011 2 petitioner. 3. The facts and figures given in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent as to the actual number of vacancies and the particulars of enlistment of the candidates are sought to be analysed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out that the version put forth by the PSC is not correct and that the correct factual position is something else. The learned counsel also submits that the issue decided in W.P.(C)No.34344/2010 is not as such applicable to the case in hand and so also is the case with regard to the law declared by the Full Bench in **Ravidas v. Public Service Commission** ( 2009(2) KLT 295(F.B.). With reference to the contents of the affidavit in support of I.A.No.12869/2012 and also the representation dated 15/03/2012 preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not intend to press for an adjudication of merits at the hands of this Court and will be satisfied if a direction is given to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 within a reasonable time. WPC.No.7692/2011 3 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the first respondent or anybody else, if the grievance sought to be redressed in the manner as stated by the petitioner is acceded to. It is for the first respondent to consider all the relevant aspects including the need and necessity which occurred for the issuance of a fresh notification as stated by the first respondent . Ext.P5 shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, in accordance with law and the outcome shall be let known to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within two months. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the case and it is open for the first respondent to have it considered independently. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of I.A.No.12869/2012 containing Ext.P5 before the first respondent for further steps. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. WPC.No.7692/2011 4 WPC.No.7692/2011 5