Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 – rr.13 and 14 – Applications invited for appointment to the posts of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) – Selection process completed, the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) on 11.09.2013 published the first Ranked List (RL-I) – On 04.11.2013, KPSC issued first advice on the basis of RL-I – KPSC’s decision to have a unified/consolidated ranked list was challenged by way of OA for not having two lists; a main and a supplementary list (which would include candidates from reserved category) – Tribunal granted interim relief on 05.12.2013 – KPSC issued second advice in respect of empanelled candidates in RL-I who had secured more than 49 marks on the basis of RL-I on 20.01.2014 – Tribunal allowed OA – High Court dismissed the petitions – Supreme Court upheld the consolidated RL-I – During the pendency of aforesaid SLPs, KPSC released second Ranked List (RL-II) on 26.05.2015 and thereby RL-I was treated as ceased to exist on 25.05.2015 – On 11.11.2015, KPSC made final advice, third advice from RL-I – RL-III notified – Aggrieved by publication of RL-II, appellants had filed OAs inter alia seeking direction for issuance of advice on the basis of RL-I (till that list ceases to exist) – Dismissed – Writ petitions filed by appellants for direction inter alia to advice (or appoint) 93 Non Joining Duty (NJD) vacancies on the basis of RL-I – DB referred the matter to Full Bench which inter alia held that RL-I expired on 01.06.2016 – Held: On a plain reading of r.13 it is clear that the Ranked List published by KPSC would remain in force for a period of one year from the date it was brought into force – It continues to be in force until the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier – First proviso is an exception to the general rule – It predicates that the general rule shall not apply in respect of Ranked List of candidates for admission to training courses that leads to automatic appointment to services or posts – In such cases, the Ranked Lists shall cease to be in force after one year from the date of finalization of Ranked Lists or after one month from the date of commencement of the course in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the Ranked Lists, whichever is later – RL-I was published on 11.09.2013, but because of fortuitous situation, the final (third) advice from RL-I was made by KPSC on 11.11.2015 and the last batch of 339 candidates so advised was sent for training on 01.05.2016 – Resultantly, the consequence provided by first proviso to r.13 got triggered, whereby RL-I ceased to operate in law, w.e.f 01.06.2016 – Interim order passed by the Tribunal on 05.12.2013, in no way interdicted the operation of RL-I – As a matter of fact, none of the advised candidates from RL-I had secured less than 49 marks in preliminary examination– Appellants not entitled to base their claim in reference to RL-I, which ceased to exist on 01.06.2016, by filing writ petition(s) on 12.10.2017 for the stated reliefs – NJD vacancies reported after 01.6.16 must be filled up from amongst the empanelled candidates in the fresh Ranked List, RL-II published on 26.05.2015 or RL-III published on 14.03.2019, as the case may be – Judgment of Full Bench upheld – Kerala High Court Act, 1958 – s.7 – Constitution of India – Arts.142 and 309 – Principles of Actus curiae neminem gravabit; lex non cogit ad impossibilia – Service Law.
Practice & Procedure – Reference by Division Bench – Exercise of jurisdiction by Full Bench – Discussed – Kerala High Court Act, 1958 – s.7.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for the procedure on Reference to Full Bench. On a plain reading of Section 7, it is amply clear that the Full Bench is competent to finally decide the case itself. It is an enabling provision. Full Bench was fully conscious about the limited scope of enquiry in Reference placed before it, but after due consideration of all aspects, deemed it necessary to analyse the factual matrix of the case in its correct perspective to justly answer the Reference. In the process, the Full Bench had to deviate from the observation made by the Division Bench that the candidates empanelled in the first Ranked List (RL-I) ought to be advised for appointment to fill up the 93 NJD vacancies reported on 12.7.2016, as, in its view, in law, the first Ranked List (RL-I) had expired on 1.6.2016. In other words, the Full Bench was fully conscious of the scope of its jurisdiction, as is evinced from the opening statement, in paragraph four of the impugned judgment. After recording the factual matrix and rival submissions, in paragraph 47 of the impugned judgment, the Full Bench noted that it was proceeding to answer the legal contentions within the parameters of the applicable law and after adverting to Rules 13 and 14 of the 1976 Rules, it analysed the factual matrix to conclude that since the last batch was advised by the KPSC from the first Ranked List (RL-I) on 11.11.2015 and it had joined training on 1.5.2016 in terms of first proviso to Rule 13, the first Ranked List (RL-I) ceased to operate from 1.6.2016 (namely, on completion of one month from 1.5.2016). In the peculiar facts of this case, the Full Bench had no other option but to analyse the factual matrix for ascertaining the applicability of extant rules and to answer the matters in issue involved in Reference appropriately. Suffice it to observe that the impugned judgment cannot be overturned on the basis of threshold (technical) plea under consideration. No fruitful purpose will be served by relegating the parties before the High Court on technicality. [Paras 22, 23][645-C; 646-G-H; 647-A-C; F-H]
T. A. Hameed v. M. Viswanathan (2008) 3 SCC 243 : [2008] 3 SCR 210; State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 1 : [2013] 5 SCR 18 – relied on.
1.2 On a plain reading of Rule 13, it is amply clear that the Ranked List published by the Commission (KPSC) would remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force. It further envisages that the said list will continue to be in force until the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. The first proviso is an exception to the general rule. It predicates that the general rule shall not apply in respect of Ranked List of candidates for admission to training courses that leads to automatic appointment to services or postsand that in such cases, the Ranked Lists shall cease to be in force after one year from the date of finalization of the Ranked Lists or after one month from the date of commencement of the course in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the Ranked Lists, whichever is later. It is only this excepted eventuality which may elongate the tenure of the Ranked List published by the Commission (KPSC) beyond one year. The first Ranked List (RL-I) was published on 11.9.2013, but because of fortuitous situation, the final (third) advice from the first Ranked List (RL-I) was made by the KPSC on 11.11.2015 and the last batch of 339 candidates so advised was sent for training on 1.5.2016. Resultantly, the consequence provided by the first proviso to Rule 13 got triggered, whereby the first Ranked List (RL-I) ceased to operate in law, with effect from 1.6.2016. The Court is in agreement with the analysis of factual matrix of the case undertaken by the Full Bench. The interim order passed by the Tribunal on 5.12.2013, in no way interdicted the operation of the first Ranked List (RL-I). As a matter of fact, none of the advised candidates from the first Ranked List (RL-I) had secured less than 49 marks in the preliminary examination. In any case, the original application(s) filed by the appellants before the Tribunal came to be disposed of on 20.2.2014, which order eventually became subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 8536/2015 and connected appeal before this Court. The operation of the first Ranked List (RL-I) was in a way interdicted for the first time on account of interim order passed by this Court on 3.11.2014, which stood vacated whilst allowing the Civil Appeal on 13.10.2015. The one-year period referred to in Rule 13 of the 1976 Rules, as per the general application, would have expired on 10.9.2014. There was no complete interdiction of the stated list until 3.11.2014 and for that reason, the KPSC was justified in issuing advice even after the interim order was passed by the Tribunal, namely, on 20.1.2014 (before the status quo order was passed by this Court for the first time on 3.11.2014). The final advice was admittedly issued on 11.11.2015 after the disposal of civil appeals by this Court on 13.10.2015. Pursuant to the final (third) advice, the last batch of 339 empanelled candidates from the first Ranked List (RL-I) was sent for training on 1.5.2016, as a result of which the first Ranked List (RL-I) ceased to exist on expiry of one month therefrom i.e. on1.6.2016. This conclusion has been justly arrived at by the Full Bench disregarding the decision of the KPSC, dated 26.10.2015 to treat the first Ranked List (RL-I) having ceased to exist due to publication of second Ranked List (RL-II) on 26.5.2015. [Paras 24-26][650-C-G; 652-G-H; 653-A-E]
1.3 Admittedly, all the appellants were empanelled in the first Ranked List (RL-I), which, as aforementioned, had ceased to exist on 1.6.2016. Resultantly, the appellants cannot set up any claim in respect of vacancies reported thereafter. The NJD vacancies reported after 1.6.2016 must be filled up from amongst the empanelled candidates in the fresh Ranked List (i.e. the second Ranked List (RL-II) published on 26.5.2015 or the third Ranked List (RL-III) published on 14.3.2019, as the case may be). [Para 27][654-A-B]
1.4 Grievance about publication of the second Ranked List (RL-II) during the pendency of appeal before this Court and despite the order of status quo, was not pursued before this Court on behalf of the appellants. The order of status quo though interdicted processing of the first Ranked List (RL-I), that restriction stood lifted with setting aside of the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and allowing the appeal on 13.10.2015. Sans any direction by this Court and challenge to publication of the second Ranked List (RL-II) on 26.5.2015, nothing came in the way of the respondents to proceed with the final advice made on 11.11.2015 relating to 339 empanelled candidates from the first Ranked List (RL-I), who in turn, commenced their training on 1.5.2016. The appellants were not entitled to base their claim in reference to the first Ranked List (RL-I), which had ceased to exist on 1.6.2016, by filing writ petition(s) on 12.10.2017 for the stated reliefs. As the first Ranked List (RL-I), in law, ceased to exist from 1.6.2016, no relief could be granted to the appellants and the principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit and lex non cogit ad impossibilia will be of no avail, as it was not a case of any prejudice caused to the appellants on account of Court order as such. [Paras 30, 31][655-A-E] S. S. Balu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 479 : [2009] 1 SCR 196; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567; Jang Singh v. Brij Lal & Ors. [1964] 2 SCR 145; Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528; South Eastern coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 648 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 651; Union of India & Ors. v. Kali Dass Batish & Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 779 : [2006] 1 SCR 261; Dr. M. A. Haque & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1993)
2 SCC 213 : [1993] 2 SCR 1; K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission Trivandrum & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 190 : [2007] 5 SCR 1042; Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 194; Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheeja P. R. & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 56 : [2013] 1 SCR 182; Nair Service Society v. Distt. Officer, Kerala Service Commission and Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 10 : [2003]
5 Suppl. SCR 551– referred to.
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair & Ors. ILR 1977 (2) Kerala 687; Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shanil Kumar (2002) 1 KLT 604; Lal Sudheer and Ors. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (2003) 1 KLT 329 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.