WP(C).No. 17740 of 2016 (N) Ajith Associates (Pvt.) Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, filed a writ petition seeking police protection for peaceful possession of 10.800 cents of land in Sy. No. 481/1, Nadama Village, supported by Exts. P1–P4. The petition arises against respondents 4–6, heirs of the assignor, who claimed title by prescription and had obstructed boundary demarcation following a civil suit (O.S. No. 691/2009) dismissed by the Munsiff, with the appellate court upholding the dismissal (A.S. No. 63 of 2011). The petitioner approached the Taluk Surveyor for boundary fixation (Ext. P7) and attempted measurement (Ext. P8), but was impeded by respondents 4–6. The petition argued that police protection was necessary to secure possession, and that police assistance was warranted to prevent breach of peace while civil remedies were pursued. The respondents contended maintainability issues: a writ petition cannot substitute for a civil suit for boundary fixation and there is a pending second appeal, with no affirmative decree in favor of the petitioner. The court reviewed jurisprudence holding that civil rights, title, and possession are determinable by civil courts, and police are not the adjudicators of such disputes. It concluded the writ petition is not maintainable, dismissing the petition with no decree in the petitioner’s favour to execute. The decision emphasizes that a writ cannot replace a civil suit for boundary determination and possession relief.
WP(C).No.31501 of 2005 (A) This writ petition challenges the dismissal of P.K. VenkatASwaran, an Assistant Sales Manager in the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) arising from a departmental inquiry under the FACT Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977. The charge sheet alleged irregular release of stock to a customer without proper authorization and non-remittance of payments, coupled with a separate charge of dishonoring five cheques without notifying the Regional Office. The Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry; Ext.P2 contains the report which found the petitioner guilty on the charged conduct. After the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objections, the disciplinary authority issued Ext.P4, which imposed major penalty of dismissal and forfeited gratuity, noting prior disciplinary findings in 1986. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 and the appellate order Ext.P7, arguing that the appellate authority did not give him a hearing and that Ext.P7 was communicated through a junior officer rather than being a speaking order. He also argued that, after the amendment to Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, gratuity forfeiture requires notice and a hearing. The court held that Ext.P7 was illegal for lack of hearing and reasons and that the forfeiture without notice must be set aside. It directed that the disciplinary authority issue notice and provide hearing within a month, and that the appellate authority be given an opportunity to decide after hearing; the matter will be reconsidered within two months, with no final decision on merits, and no costs. The petition is partly allowed.
WP(C).Nos.17422/2016 & 17431/2016 These two writ petitions challenge Lok Adalat awards in connected suits (O.S. Nos. 395/2016 and 396/2016) where Emmanuel Silks and related entities had executed an equitable mortgage in favor of the petitioner bank. The bank issued notices under Section 13(2) and proceeded with possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act after the borrower accounts turned NPAs. The Lok Adalat awarded a compromise on 9 April 2016, declaring Document Nos. 994/2010 and 995/2010 void and recording a settlement that decreed accounts, cancelled a document, and granted a permanent injunction. The bank contends this award is not binding on it and cannot override the bank’s rights under SARFAESI and the 1995 Act; the respondents allege fraud and seek to annul the bank’s rights via the Lok Adalat process. The court surveys authorities on the scope of Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the maintainability of writs against civil court orders and Lok Adalat awards. It concludes Lok Adalat awards are not binding on the bank’s enforceable rights under SARFAESI; the bank may proceed under Sections 13 and 14 and the petitions are allowed overall, permitting recovery of secured assets without being impeded by the Lok Adalat awards.
WP(C).No. 18421 of 2016 (C) This writ petition challenges Ext. P10, an order of the Elamadu Grama Panchayat Council denying renewal of a power laundry unit's licence. The petitioners contend that renewal falls under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, not under Section 233, and that the Panchayat Council cannot repeat the initial licensing process for a unit already in operation since 2007. The petition traces a history of approvals: Ext. P3 (license under Section 233, 2007), Exts. P4 and P5 (renewals by the Secretary under Section 232), and Ext. P6 (Consent to Operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, valid till 2017). Despite these, Ext. P10 records the Council’s rejection of renewal on grounds of potential contamination and nuisance, contrary to the Pollution Control Board’s consent. Citing Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy, petitioners submit that renewal can be processed by the Secretary under Section 232 rather than by the Council’s Section 233 route. The court reviews the statutory scheme, reiterates that Section 233 concerns construction/installation while renewal is ordinarily governed by Section 232, and holds that there is no basis to deny renewal where operation has continued, a valid PCB consent exists, and no evidence of nuisance. Ext. P10 is set aside; the Secretary is directed to grant renewal subject to the court’s directions and any conditions. The petition is allowed with no costs.
WP(C).No. 20619 of 2015 (B) This writ petition challenges whether events after the allotment of the toddy vending privilege can be used to retroactively affect the rights of participants in the auction. The fifth respondent, Benny Jose, held Group I toddy shops in Kunnamangalam until 31 March 2014. Following chemical analyses, an adverse report led to suspension on 17 March 2013 and criminal proceedings under the Abkari Act; however, subsequent B-sample analysis in 2013 was favourable, leading to discharge from the crimes and temporary stays. In 2014, the Government scheduled an abkari year auction and fixed 5 March 2014 as the sale date. Interim orders stayed confirmations in some petitions, and the matter moved through a series of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) Nos. 6324/2014 and 13868/2014, with the Excise Commissioner eventually issuing orders (Exhibits P7 and P10) in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner contends that the sale and confirmation should be blocked, arguing that the incumbent’s right to preference arises only from timely, uncontested compliance and that the petitioner’s vested rights and third parties’ interests would be thwarted. The respondent contends abuse of process and that policy considerations justify the fifth respondent’s priority, while relying on prior Division Bench rulings. The court ultimately sides with the interpretation that post-allotment developments, including exoneration, can affect preferences, and dismisses the petition, affirming the Excise Commissioner’s order in favor of the fifth respondent.
WP(C).No. 20226 of 2011 (C) and WP(C).No. 24497 of 2011 (C) These writ petitions challenge a common order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning penalty orders under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976, for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. The petitioner, Hotel & Allied Trades Private Limited (Casino Hotel, Kochi), argued that penalties were unwarranted for not bifurcating VAT and luxury tax components when Rule 3C was amended only on 28 July 2006. The hotel had charged a consolidated amount for banqueting and related services and paid VAT on the full amount. The amendment introduced a method to bifurcate charges and compute luxury tax at 25% of the service fee in certain venues; however, for the 2005-06 year the amendment was not yet in force, and the court later held that assessment could be completed by determining if any differential is due and credit for excess VAT could be given. The petitioners contended that there was no deliberate evasion and that no government loss occurred; any shortfall could be recovered in tax assessment proceedings. The state contended penalties were justified for non-bifurcation and alleged suppression. The High Court found that although there was deficiency in bifurcation, there was no deliberate attempt to evade taxes and no substantial loss to the government; accordingly, the penalties were quashed for 2005-06 through 2007-08. The court left open certain questions regarding the Poolside area.
WP(C).No. 20100 of 2014 (J) These petitions challenge a perceived vacuum in the service conditions of employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board after vesting in a government company under the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioners, led by K.S. Balachandran, contend there is no regulatory framework post-reorganisation to govern service conditions, and press for extending the retirement age from 56 to 60 years. The Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the Kerala Service Rules ostensibly fix retirement at 56, while the Board argues that the transfer schemes, Memorandum of Understanding, Articles of Association, and Tripartite Agreement preserve existing terms, with no obligation to adopt Model Standing Orders. The petition relies on Sections 131 and 133 of the Electricity Act, claiming that the transfer scheme and re-vesting should determine service conditions, and that a vacuum requires continuance of the employees until age 60. The respondents maintain that no fresh regulations are necessary, and that the Standing Orders, KSR and the agreement framework govern. The court analyzes authorities including UP State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain; Harwindra Kumar; M/s British Paints; and U.P. State Electricity Board v Labour Court, concluding that Standing Orders Act is a special regime that can override general regulations in appropriate circumstances, but in the present vacuum, the Government policy to retain 56 remains unassailable. The petitions are dismissed with costs.
The petitioner, Kunjalavi Chellamma, is owner in possession of 15.20 acres of land in Sy.No.366/28, Pavithreshwaram Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, and seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Geologist, Kollam, to issue a Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A) under Rule 25 read with Rule 26 of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015, for transporting ordinary earth from her property to facilitate construction of a residential building for which Ext.P1 building permit dated 7 April 2015 was issued by Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat. She plans to develop 10.20 acres of the land following extraction of earth for a building project. An application was forwarded to the District Geologist after obtaining the permit, but no decision was communicated, prompting this court’s intervention, especially in light of Ext.P2—a prior judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.10347/2016. The case reveals that Ext.P1 appears in another petition as a photocopy with identical dates and numbers, raising doubts about its genuineness. The court ordered production of original Ext.P1 and related plans; it found suppression of facts, misleading affidavits, and color photocopies. It further noted that earlier permissions to remove earth were granted (750 tonnes, then 400 tonnes). Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹50,000 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, while leaving open the possibility of a proper future application under law.
WP(C).No. 17085 of 2016 (I) The petition challenges Ext. P12 stop memo which halted construction on 55.625 cents of land in Nadama Thekkumbhagam Village. Petitioners purchase land (including 20.25 cents in nearby Survey No.689/2) and commenced construction of a residential project based on a building permit issued to the predecessor, later converted in petitioners’ name. They argue the land was converted long before the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and that the building permits were valid; the Draft Data Bank (Ext. P14) and LLMC findings allegedly show conversion occurred a decade prior to the Act. Cited precedents include Aboobacker v. Manjeri Municipality; Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector; Issathul Islam Madrassa v. Keezhattoor Grama Panchayath, and Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer; the latter sets that conversion prior to the Paddy Land Act necessitates action under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order). The petitioners contend that, if permitted under pre-existing permits and conversions, the use should be regularized. Respondents seek to apply Paddy Land Act and related processes, asserting the need to verify under KLU Order and ancillary circulars. Ultimately, the court directs the petitioners to pursue the appropriate authority under KLU Order and disposes the petition with observations, noting Survey No.689/2’s partial conversion may require separate treatment.
W.P(C).No.17441 of 2016 (E) The petitioner, Prasad Mathew, files W.P.(C) No.17441 of 2016 (E) seeking a deemed licence under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, arguing that the Gram Panchayat has not rejected his renewal application for the D&O licence and that, in the absence of a rejection order, he is entitled to a deemed licence. The Panchayat's counter-affidavit attributes the delay to agitations and ongoing litigation concerning the Bitumen Mixing Plant, implying that the licence could not be renewed within the period. The petitioner relies on established high court precedent (Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat and Ramapuram Grama Panchayath v. St. Basil Industries) to urge a deemed licence conditioned on valid consent from the Pollution Control Board (PCB). Respondents 3–5, impleaded residents, protest the plant’s emissions and seek protection from potential health and environmental harm; they rely on reports and local resolutions indicating public concern. The PCB’s reports and a 2015 circular categorising temporary versus permanent permissions, along with a board order and emissions data, feature in the discussion. The court notes compliance with prior directions, finds no current health-emission risk, and invokes Sudhakaran and Ramapuram to direct issuance of a deemed licence within one week, pending PIL challenges. The petition is allowed with no costs, subject to challenge in the PIL.
W.P.(C).No.14813 of 2016 (B) The petitioner, P. Subhash Chandran, Manager of Sree Chithira Vilasom Boys High School, seeks sanction to start a Higher Secondary section in the aided Boys High School at Chirayinke ezhu, Thiruvananthapuram. He relies on government orders and communications (Exs. P4-P5) and on a chain of correspondence through the DEO and Regional Deputy Director (Exs. P6-P9) to urge that the school be considered for a Higher Secondary batch. The petitioner had previously challenged the matter in a writ petition and points to Exhibit P4 to show governmental recommendation, while Exhibit P12 indicates the school should be granted the Higher Secondary section for the coming academic year. However, the respondent State disputes this, invoking a policy-based framework established by this Court in prior decisions, including a judgment in Manager, St. Sebastian’s High School v. State of Kerala (2015) and the later 2016 decision in W.P.(C) No.8109/2016, which mandated a transparent process for assessing educational need in each district and calling for applications only after such need is determined. The Government formed a Six Member Committee (Ex. P10) and, despite recommendations, there were cancellations (Ex. P12) upheld by a Division Bench (W.A.No.1280/2015). The Court concludes that policy and procedural requirements must be exhausted before granting relief and dismisses the petition in limine.
W.P.(C). Nos.15938 & 19460 of 2016 These writ petitions challenge the denial of FL-3 licences to five-star hotels under the Abkari policy introduced in 2014 and subsequent amendments to the Foreign Liquor Rules. The petitioner, N. Suresh, is the managing director of Contour Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd., whose hotel was classified as five-star by the Ministry of Tourism (Ext.P2) and which held an FL-3 licence renewed up to 31.3.2015. With the upgrade, the petitioner sought renewal of FL-3 or its conversion to FL-11 under the amended rules, and remitted substantial fees (Ext.P9). The State introduced an Abkari Policy (Ext.P4) providing FL-3 licences only to five-star hotels and enabling FL-11 licences on certain terms (Ext.P11–P13). The petitioner relied on the court’s earlier judgments (Ext.P11, Ext.P12) and government orders (Ext.P14) that allowed a continuation or renewal of FL-3 in similar circumstances. The respondents argued that FL-3 renewals are barred by the policy and that FL-11 is not a renewal, while the license was defunct. The court, following Khoday Distilleries and the earlier extents, held that the prior judgments bind the State and rejected arbitrary denial of FL-3 licences to five-star hotels. The petitions are allowed; the Ext.P15/Ext.P8 refusals are quashed, and the respondents are directed to issue FL-3 licences to the petitioners within one month in accordance with law and the earlier judgments.
Rangorath Gokul Prasad, a devotee of Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom in Palakkad district, filed W.P.(C) No.23626 of 2015 alleging inaction by the Malabar Devaswom Board and other statutory authorities in protecting temple properties. The petitioner focuses on 99 cents of land in survey No.961/24 in Palakkad-2 Village, currently described as a pond attached to the temple and allegedly belonging to Ramanathapuram Viswanathaswami Lakshmi Narayana Perumal Devaswom, as per Ext.P1 (revenue settlement register) of 1904. He seeks mandamus to compel respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to repossess the land for the Devaswom and to ensure the temple pond is properly maintained. The 7th respondent contends that the land is not temple property, asserting ownership through his wife and children, with jenmam/kanam rights supporting his position; he denies the pond’s temple character. The 8th respondent, added as trustee, also claims ownership. The High Court emphasizes the temple’s protected status and the trustees’ parens patriae duty, directing the 3rd respondent (and 8th respondent) to take steps to reclaim possession and mandating supervisory action by the Malabar Devaswom Board, while denying broader relief to the petitioner.
WP(C).No.13961 of 2015 (U) Philomina George, a full-time menial (FTM) at St. Joseph's High School for Girls, Alappuzha, was appointed on 6 December 1999 with her promotion path to Peon/Office Attendant, to be allotted on seniority. A vacancy arose in September 2014 after retirement, and the manager filled it by direct recruitment of the 6th respondent, with the 2nd respondent approving after noting that 66 FTM’s had relinquished their claims. The petitioner challenged Ext. P6, arguing that the relinquishment letter dated 01.07.2004 could not bar consideration for the 2014 vacancy since relinquishment pertained to an earlier vacancy, not future ones, and that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. The respondents contended that the relinquishments extinguished all claims and justified direct recruitment. The court held that relinquishment in 2004 could not defeat entitlement to consideration for the 2014 vacancy; it reaffirmed that, under Kerala Education Rules, the post of Peon/Office Attendant in an aided school is to be filled by promotion from FTM’s and that the right to be considered is a fundamental right. Noting the Full Bench decision in Usha Thayyil v State of Kerala, the court held that Note to R.44(1) pertains to relinquishment of an existing vacancy, not subsequent ones. It quashed Exts. P5 and P6, and directed a fresh appointment in accordance with the Kerala Education Act and Rules, with willingness sought from FTM’s in zone of consideration and direct recruitment only per Rules, to be completed within three months of judgment copy.
This writ petition challenges the non-issuance of assignment of forest land under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularization of Forest Lands prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993. The petitioners claim the land in question was non-cardamom cultivation land before 1 January 1977 and was transferred from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department; they rely on Ext.P7 Government Order to contend there is no bar to assignment under the Special Rules, and that their applications are pending before the 3rd respondent. The counter affidavit states the land is shown as cardamom cultivation in the Resurvey Land Register and that possession records do not establish non-cardamom use prior to 1977; there is no record of transfer from Forest to Revenue nor inclusion in lists for central concurrence under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, rendering the lands ineligible for assignment. The High Court cites Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 2116/2000) to interpret Section 2 of the 1980 Act, noting its object of forest conservation and the need for central approvals in certain pre-1980 occupations. In light of Ext.P7, the court holds that no further central approval is necessary, but directs joint verification under the Special Rules and completion of eligibility considerations within six months. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
WP(C).No. 15824 of 2016 (C) The petitioner, P. V. Mohammed Kutty (represented by counsel) challenges the Panchayat’s rejection of his application for a slaughter house licence and seeks a deemed licence under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, alleging long-standing operation of a slaughter house in RS No.128/5, Kanhirode village, Ward 12 of Munderi Grama Panchayat. A notice Ext. P1 directed the petitioner to stop slaughtering within seven days, and the petitioner submitted Ext. P2, which was not in the form prescribed by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996. Subsequently Ext. P4 was filed under the Rules, but for 30 days there was no response, prompting the petitioner to rely on a deemed licence under Section 236(3). The respondents contended that the application was not complete and not in conformity with the Rules of 1996 (Rule 32), and that the Secretary cannot decide such an application that should be decided by the Panchayat after calling for objections. The court noted that the applicant’s long-standing conduct does not cure procedural deficiencies and that the Rules impose strict compliance, including deposits for publications and proximity restrictions (Rule 5). The court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, but allowed the petitioner to approach the Panchayat with a proper application for a licence, clarifying that no slaughter house operation is permitted without a licence.
WP(C).No. 34849 of 2004 (W) & W.P.(C) No. 8297 of 2005 (K) This matter involves two rival claimants for the post of Head Master of an Upper Primary School in Thiruvananthapuram. The vacancy arose on 1 January 2000 after the incumbent’s termination on 31 December 1999. Smt. Vimala, who had been serving as Head Master in charge and possessed a B.Ed. along with five years’ post‑B.Ed. teaching experience, contends she is entitled to the post; the rival claimant, Sri Asokan, is the admitted senior with other qualifications but not the five‑year post‑B.Ed. criterion. The core issue is the interpretation of Rule 45 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), 1959, which provides that the post shall be filled from qualified teachers with a preference to a graduate who also has a B.Ed. and at least five years’ teaching experience after B.Ed., with service equal to half the period of the senior most under‑graduate teacher; if none meet this, the seniority list rules (Rules 44 and 34) apply. The court cites Mallika v. Manager (2001) 3 KLT 892 to reaffirm that a junior with the required graduate/B.Ed. qualifications and requisite service can be preferred even where a senior undergraduate teacher exists. The judgment ultimately allows Vimala’s petition, directs promotion within two weeks, and orders pay, pension, and related arrears for the period she served as Headmistress. W.P.(C) No. 8297/2005 is dismissed; Asokan is to be deemed retired with pension, with computation within four months. No costs.
WP(C).No. 12338 of 2015 (N) The petitioner Lalitha K Nair operates a petrol bunk, Indraneelam Fuels, on the Changanassery–Vazhoor road. She erected a pillar and a sign board on the shoulder of a State Highway opposite the third party’s property. The 1st and 2nd respondents issued notices (Exts. P2, P3) directing removal for lack of sanction from the Panchayath and the PWD, and for causing obstruction to ingress and egress of the third respondent. The petitioner contends that she later obtained Panchayath sanction, but no such sanction is produced and the Panchayath does not endorse the claim. It is admitted that the road is a State Highway and any erection on the shoulder requires sanction from the PWD and the Panchayath. The third respondent had filed complaints; the action cannot be tainted by political motive since the Chief Minister’s office forwarded the complaint under a public grievance program, which is to be redressed through local authorities after an independent inquiry. The Court notes that Section 209(c) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act enables removal of unauthorized advertisements when contrary to Section 209(a). The pillar and sign board, erected on public property without permission, are orderly removals. The court grants one month to remove; failing which the authorities may remove and recover expenses. The writ petition is dismissed.
W.P.(C).No.20448 of 2012-E The petitioner Lilly V.A., Principal of St. Antony’s Higher Secondary School, Moorkkanad, Thrissur, challenges Exhibit P3, an order of the Director of Higher Secondary Education directing the 5th respondent, Jaison Pius, to be appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST). Both Lilly and the 5th respondent were LPSA in 2000 and HSST (Junior) in 2002, with Lilly later becoming Principal. The crux is seniority between Lilly and the 5th respondent for promotion to HSST (Junior) in Economics, the treating authority being the Director under Kerala Education Rules (KER). The petitioner contends that Exhibit P3 is without jurisdiction because Chapter XXXII of KER does not provide for an appeal to the Director; according to Lilly, the Regional Deputy Director has authority to exercise such powers, and there is no provision for an appeal beyond the RDD. The Respondents argue that Rule 1(b) of Chapter XXXII authorizes the RDD to function as Director, hence Exhibit P3 is valid. On merits, the petition argues for determination of seniority by general principles of service jurisprudence, not XIV-A, since XIV-A cannot be imported into XXXII. The court reviews cases like Sreelatha, Sam Joseph, Jayasree and Valsamma to decide that XIV-A does not apply to XXXII, and that seniority should be decided by continuous service and first appointment, with age as a last resort. The Director’s order is upheld, and the writ petition is dismissed with no costs, following Mohd. Swalleh for deference to administrative orders.
WP(C).No. 12956 of 2014 (T) The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Clause No.37 of Rule 7 in Chapter VI of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, and Licence Condition No.36 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, along with a Government Order, to the extent they bar women from engagement in foreign liquor shops run by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. The six women petitioners were included in the PSC-ranked list for peon/helper posts and seek appointments despite the constraints imposed by the rules. They argue that prohibiting women on the basis of sex violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and that Supreme Court precedents (Anuj Garg; P.B. Vijayakumar; Charu Khurana) and Kerala decisions (Rajamma; Dhanyamol) render such restrictions unconstitutional. The respondents contend the rules apply to both toddy and foreign liquor shops and that directing appointments from the ranked list could disrupt existing appointments and the ranking system. After considering authorities, the court holds that sex-based restrictions in foreign liquor shops offend Articles 14 and 15, and accordingly directs the PSC to advise and appoint the petitioners from the ranked list, within two weeks, and to rework the ranked list within a month, accommodating petitioners against vacancies or supernumerary vacancies. The petitions are thus allowed with remedial directions to reallocate positions consistent with constitutional equality.
