Kerala Public Service Commission Alone Is Empowered To Take Decision On Extension Of Period Of Ranked List: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court clarified that under the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, Kerala Public Service Commission alone is empowered under law to take a decision as to the extension of the period of the ranked list issued by it.
In these matters, before the High Court, the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), as well as candidates included in a ranked list published by the PSC in the years 2023 & 2024 for appointment to the post of Fire and Rescue Officer (Driver) (Trainee), challenged the order of the Tribunal. This was done due to the fact that for the recruitment to the same post, the Tribunal, based on the ranked list dated October 10, 2019, ordered an extension of the period of the said ranked list on the ground that an interim order passed by the Tribunal in another matter curtailed its lifespan.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque & Justice P. M. Manoj observed, “PSC is a constitutional body.Under 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, PSC alone is empowered under law to take a decision as to the extension of the period, that too, in the circumstances referred to in the 5th proviso.”
Advocate P.C.Sasidhara represented the Petitioner-Commission while Advocate P.Nandakumar represented the Respondent.
The facts of the case suggested that the PSC invited applications for selection to the post of Fireman Drivercum-Pump Operator (Trainee) in the Fire and Rescue Services as per a notification of 2017 and the ranked list came into force with effect from October 10, 2019. The ranked list was cancelled by the PSC on in 2020.
During the currency of the ranked list, a challenge was raised against the qualification for appointment as Fireman Driver-cum-Pump Operator (Trainee). The Tribunal passed an interim order interdicting PSC from advising the candidates from the ranked list. This stay was supposed to continue till January 18, 2021. The Tribunal thereafter dismissed the challenge and a fresh original application was filed seeking an extension of the validity of the ranked list equal to the period during which the interim order was granted by the Tribunal from December 18, 2019 to January 18,2021.This application was allowed.
The candidates in the ranked list of 2023 & 2024 approached the Court for an extension of the validity of their ranked list.
The Bench noted that 62 vacancies were reported during the currency of the ranked list and upon disposal of the case, all advices were issued. There was no interdiction against the reporting of vacancies. Pursuant to a fresh notification, 80 vacancies were reported.
Reference was made to Rule 13 under which a ranked list published is normally in force for a period of one year. provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of a minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier. Under the 4th proviso to Rule 13, if no candidate is advised during the period of one year, the life of the ranked list will be extended till the expiry of 3 years; and also for a further period of one year, if the situation continues. Reference was also made to 5th proviso to Rule 13, which states that if there is a period of general ban declared by the Government in reporting the vacancies, PSC will have the power to keep the ranked list alive for such another period, as it may be decided, subject to minimum period of three months or for such other period not exceeding one and a half year in aggregate.
The Bench was of the view that the Tribunal completely misread the judgment in KPSC v. Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (1977 KHC 287) as affirmed by the Full Bench in Unnikrishnan Nair G.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (2) KHC 24]. The Full Bench referred to the circumstances under which extension can be allowed, but it cannot be understood as a declaration of law. The Bench observed that it is only a reference to the circumstances in which possibly an extension can be sought. On the other hand, the Full Bench affirmed the decision of Dr.Kesvankutty Nair’s case (supra) holding that actus curiae neminem gravabit cannot be relied on in those circumstances.
“It is to be noted that the applicants before the Tribunal failed to prove that any harm has been caused to them due to the interim order passed in the earlier litigation. It is also to be noted that there was no interdiction against reporting vacancies to PSC. PSC has acknowledged receipt of the proforma that report vacancies. The only interdiction was against issuing advice memo as against the vacancies reported. Therefore, there is no scope for relying on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit ”, it held. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit means that he act of the court shall prejudice no-one.
The Bench added, “ Further, PSC is a constitutional body. Under 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, PSC alone is empowered under law to take a decision as to the extension of the period, that too, in the circumstances referred to in the 5th proviso.”
The High Court further explained that the Tribunal could not have directed PSC to extend life of the ranked list equivalent to the period of interim order as the applicants before the Tribunal failed to make out a case that there was a ban in reporting vacancies to PSC.
Thus, the Bench set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Cause Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. Vilayathulla P.H. & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:85936]
Appearance:
Petitioner:Advocate P.C.Sasidhara
Respondents: Advocates P.Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev, Vivek Vijayakumar, Riya Tomy, Senior Government Pleader A.J.Varghese
