Art 226 | Writ Court Not Refrained From Granting Relief To Which Party Is Entitled Merely Because That Specific Relief Is Not Sought: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, while allowing a writ appeal, observed that the Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not refrain from granting a relief to which a party is entitled, merely for the reason that a specific relief had not been sought in petition. Division Bench consisting of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha, observed that,...
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, while allowing a writ appeal, observed that the Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not refrain from granting a relief to which a party is entitled, merely for the reason that a specific relief had not been sought in petition.
Division Bench consisting of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha, observed that,
Merely for the reason that a specific relief has not been sought in the writ petition, it is not an impediment for the court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief which a party is entitled to.
The appellant, in this case, had participated in the exam conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission and was assigned 3rd rank in the supplementary rank list of candidates belonging to the Viswakarma community pursuant to the selection process. The fourth respondent was the candidate assigned the 2nd rank in the supplementary rank list and who relinquished this claim by letter. However, the commission rejected the letter and advised her for appointment in a vacancy reported to it.
A Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging this, and the case set out in the petition was that insofar as the relinquishment of the claim made by the fourth respondent was per the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the commission ought to have advised the appellant for appointment in the place of the fourth respondent. While dismissing the writ petition, the Single Judge bench took the view that insofar as the appellant has not challenged the decision of the commission in rejecting the relinquishment letter of the fourth respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.
The Counsel appearing for the appellant, Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, argued that the commission does not have a case that the relinquishment letter submitted by the fourth respondent does not contain the requisite particulars.
On the Contrary, Standing Counsel for the Commission submitted that the relinquishment letter does not indicate that the signature of the fourth respondent contained therein is one affixed by the fourth respondent herself in the presence of a Gazetted officer and therefore, it cannot be said that there is compliance of the requirements contained in Rule 18(ii).
On a query from the court, Standing Counsel for the Commission conceded that the Commission had prescribed no form for submission of relinquishment letters, and the same can be submitted on a white paper and will be accepted as valid if it conforms to the requirements contained in Rule 18(ii).
The Court observed that it is evident from the provisions of Rule 18(ii) that it is permissible for a candidate whose name has been included in a ranked list to submit a written application giving their full address and signature, duly attested by a Gazetted Office on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice based on which they are to be advised and if the name of the candidate who has relinquished their claim is removed from the ranked list, the next candidate in the order of merit is entitled to be advised against the vacancy in which the candidate who has relinquished his claim was to be advised.
After close scrutiny of the relinquishment letter, the Court observed that the requisites of Rule 18(ii) had been duly met. The only defect founcommissionommission in the letter is that even though it contained the signature of the fourth respondent, she earmarked a rectangle box therein to affix her signature in the presence of the Gazetted officer and that she omitted to affix her signature at that place; however, the Court held that in the absence of any requirement under the Rules for dual signature of the candidate, it cannot be said that the requirements of Rule 18(ii) has not been complied with.
The Court however, clarified that in a case where the court finds that the requirements of the Rule has been scrupulously complied with by a candidate, the benefit of the same can be availed by the candidate next in the order of merit.
Thus, the Court opined that even though there was no specific relief sought for in the writ petition in that regard, the writ petition was essentially one challenging the decision rejecting the relinquishment letter and merely for the reason that a specific relief has not been sought in the writ petition, it is not an impediment for the court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief which a party is entitled to.
Setting aside the impugned judgment the Court allowed the writ appeal and directed the Commission advise the petitioner for appointment in the vacancy in which the fourth respondent was advised for appointment.
Case Title: Smitha M.G v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker)385