Publishing Pleadings, Orders On PSC Website Is Not Valid Service Of Notice On Ranked List Candidates: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in a miscellaneous application filed in an original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicants had sought directions concerning the mode of service on candidates included in a PSC ranked list for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II).

A Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that “the Tribunal cannot effect service of notices and processes to the respondents, who are candidates included in the ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, by directing the Public Service Commission to publish in their website, the PDF of the original application, the PDF of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal in the original application for the information of all the candidates in the ranked list, and by inserting an intra-site hyperlink in the individual profile, inside the dashboard of all the candidates in the ranked list”.

Advocate S. Sabarinadh appeared for the petitioners, while Government Pleader Parvathy K., Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan appeared for the Kerala Public Service Commission and Standing Counsel Robson Paul appeared for the Kerala Agricultural University appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioners were applicants before the Tribunal in proceedings concerning a ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II). They had challenged the recruitment notification and the ranked list to the extent that candidates possessing qualifications other than a Diploma in Agriculture or a Diploma in Organic Agriculture from the Kerala Agricultural University were included in the list. They also sought the recasting of the ranked list after excluding such candidates.

The applicants sought interim relief, including a stay of operation of the ranked list and a direction to keep issuance of advice from the ranked list in abeyance. The Tribunal had earlier passed an interim order that all advice and appointments from the ranked list would be subject to the result of the original application.

After that interim order, the applicants filed a miscellaneous application seeking, in the alternative, a direction to the PSC to publish the PDF of the original application and interim orders on its website, insert an intra-site hyperlink in the individual profiles of ranked-list candidates, and treat such publication as completion of service.

The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application. It noted that the candidates formed an identifiable class against whom notice could be duly served and also recorded the submission of the PSC that service through the candidates’ profiles was not possible and would set a bad precedent.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first examined Rule 10 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010, which deals with service of notices and processes issued by the Tribunal. It noted that sub-rule (1) permits service by hand delivery, registered post with acknowledgement due, or through the head of the Department concerned. Sub-rule (2) requires an acknowledgement and an affidavit of service where notice is served by hand delivery through the applicant.

The Court then considered sub-rule (3), which enables the Tribunal to direct notice to be served in any other manner, including substituted service, after considering the number of respondents, their place of residence or work, and other circumstances. It also noticed sub-rule (4), under which the Tribunal may, having regard to the nature and urgency of the case, direct service on the Standing Counsel appointed by the State Government or any Department of the State Government.

On the applicants’ reliance on Rule 10(8), the Court recorded the condition under which the Tribunal may hear an application despite non-service on some respondents. The Court noted that “if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to serve notice of application upon all respondents, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the application be heard notwithstanding that some of the respondents have not been served with notice of the application.”

The Bench further noted the proviso to Rule 10(8), under which no application can be heard unless notice has been served on the Government, if it is a respondent; notice has been served on the authority which passed the order under challenge; and the Tribunal is satisfied that the interest of the unserved respondent is adequately and sufficiently represented by a served respondent.

The Court also examined Rule 10(9), inserted with effect from 15.03.2021, which provides that in case of electronic filing of an application, notice or process shall, as far as possible, be served through electronic means. The Court noted that where the electronic mailing address is not known, service may be done as per sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 10.

The Court then turned to Rule 4B, which deals with addition of parties. The Bench quoted the Rule to note that “All persons directly affected shall be made parties to the application. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the Tribunal, on application made for the purpose, be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the original application shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Tribunal in each case may direct.”

Applying Rule 4B, the Court held that if the affected persons were numerous, the applicants could have moved an application seeking permission to implead one or more affected candidates on behalf of all persons so affected. The Court observed that “In the absence of an appropriate order passed by the Tribunal, on a miscellaneous application filed under Rule 4B, the Tribunal cannot record its satisfaction under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 that the interests of the respondent on whom notice of the application has not been served is adequately and sufficiently represented by the respondent on whom notice of the application has been served.”

Conclusion

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in refusing the request to treat publication of pleadings and interim orders on the PSC website, or hyperlinking them in candidates’ dashboards, as valid service of notice. It further held that in the absence of an order under Rule 4B, the Tribunal could not proceed on the basis that unserved candidates were adequately represented. Finding no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order, the Court dismissed the original petition.

Cause Title: Henna P.K. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:45238)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates S. Sabarinadh and Indulekha Joseph

Respondents: Government Pleader Parvathy K.; Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan for Kerala Public Service Commission; Standing Counsel Robson Paul for Kerala Agricultural University

Click here to read/download Judgment