IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 3217 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------- TA. NO.5946/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .......... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. HAREES K.P., S/O. SAIDALI K.P., KAKKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 583.
2. DHANYA T.K., D/O. T.K. KUNJUNJU, THATTUMPURATH HOUSE, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 610.
3. FEMINA P., D/O. MOHAMMED P., PULIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMPOYIL, P.O. CHANDAKKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 342.
4. REMYA K., D/O.T.S. KRISHNAN KUTTY, KAKKARA HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321.
5. RUKSANA P.,D/O. VEEERANKUTTY HAJI, CHEERAKKOLIL HOUSE, PERUMPARAMB, P.O. UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6. ANUPAMA C., D/O. LATE A. NARAYANAN NAMBEESAN, ARAVANGAVU NHAVALLIYIL, MAVAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
7. BINCY M., D/O. LATE M. VIJAYAN, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, ANGADIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321.
8. ANVAR P.,S/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY, PARIYARATH HOUSE, KANMANAM THEKKUMURY, KALPAKANCHERY VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
9. NAJMA BEEGAM P., D/O. UNNIMOIDEEN P., MELEPARIKKAT HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM. OP(KAT).No. 3217 of 2013 (Z) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM -676 505.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC. R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOBLE MATHEW. THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. OP(KAT).No. 3217 of 2013 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF W.P.(C) NO. 24099/2011 (WHICH WAS LATER NUMBERED AS TA NO.5946/2012). ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS1& 2 DATED2712/2011. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE REPLYAFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) NO. 24099/2011 (WHICH WAS LATER NUMBERED AS TA NO.5946/2012). ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED0107/2013 IN TA NO.5946/2012. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
.................................................................... OP(KAT) No.3217 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of September, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission and the learned Government Pleader. 2.This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is by aspirants to the category of High School Assistant (Natural Science) in Malappuram district. They were not included in the short list after the written examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. The plea raised before the learned Tribunal on a transferred application was, pointedly, that the total number of candidates that ought to have been included in the short list ought to be, at least, thrice the anticipated vacancies. The Tribunal did not accept that argument. It noted that even as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2009(2) KLT295 and the ratio OP(KAT) 3217/13 -2- in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [1985(4) SCC417, the requirement is that the number of candidates to be called for interview in the order of marks obtained in the written examination should not exceed twice or, at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up. This does not mean that the PSC is obliged to short list a minimum twice or thrice of candidates, going by the vacancies. For one thing, the PSC is not merely a provider of job to those in need of employment. One of the prime concerns of the PSC is to select the best, subject, of course, to the Rules that govern the field of recruitment. Therefore, every endeavor has to be made to get the best. The ratio decidendi that could be culled out from Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) as understood from the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ravidas (supra) is that short list should not, under normal circumstances, exceed twice and in exceptional circumstances, it may go up to thrice. Here, the PSC's notification shows 89 vacancies. Leave aside the PSC's submission before the Tribunal that at the time of preparation of the short list, there were only 57 vacancies to be filled up; the fact of the matter remains that 178 will be twice the number of 89. If that were so, PSC cannot be found fault with for having prepared a short list of OP(KAT) 3217/13 -3- 143 persons only, since that is below twice the number of vacancies. In this view of the matter, the question whether the supplementary list, which is entitled to cater to the reserved category, should also be clubbed to arrive at the total number of vacancies to be reported, does not arise for consideration. Therefore, notwithstanding the indication in the impugned order of the Tribunal in that regard, depending upon the supplementary list, we find no legal infirmity in the final conclusion arrived at, and the decision rendered, by the learned Tribunal, dismissing the transferred application. 3.We see no ground of illegality or error of jurisdiction warranting visitation in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this original petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg