Kerala PSC Rules| No Extension Of Rank Lists Upto Date That Coincides With Expiry Of 1 Month After Last Batch Of Persons Advised Under Extended Period Commenced Training: High Court
The Kerala High Court on Monday interpreted the 1st proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, and held that the provision does not mean that the validity of rank lists issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission would have to be extended by a further period up to the date that coincides with the expiry of one month after the last batch of persons...
The Kerala High Court on Monday interpreted the 1st proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, and held that the provision does not mean that the validity of rank lists issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission would have to be extended by a further period up to the date that coincides with the expiry of one month after the last batch of persons advised under the extended period commenced their training.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., observed that holding to the contrary would result in an endless loop. Taking note of the facts of the case, it was observed that this would mean,
"... All vacancies reported till (the date on which the last batch of candidates advised pursuant to the vacancies reported commenced their training, and the expiry of period of one month thereafter) would then have to be ascertained and candidates from the rank list advised to the said vacancies. We would then, yet again, have to ascertain the date on which the last batch of those candidates commenced their training and so on. This contention of the petitioners is clearly untenable since, accepting the same would result in a never-ending process of extension of a rank list till all candidates in the list are advised to vacancies that are reported during the period of each extension. This could never have been the intention of the rule makers. We also find that an acceptance of the contention of the petitioners would render meaningless the phrase "within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists" that finds mention in the 1st proviso to Rule 13".
Brief Factual Matrix
The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter 'PSC') had issued a notification dated 10th March 2016, for selection to the post of Police Constable in the India Reserve Battalion (Regular Wing) of the Kerala Police Establishment. Soon after the selection process was completed, a rank list was issued by the PSC on 4th July 2018. It was found that the last batch of candidates who advised from the rank list within the one year period that expired by 3.7.2019, was on 10.6.2019, and their training only commenced on 5th August 2020. On this ground, the PSC cancelled the list on 4th September 2020. It is pertinent to note that as per the 1st proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the ranked list issued on 4th July 2018 was to remain in force for a period of one year therefrom or till 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 was later.
In this context, the petitioners herein approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter 'Tribunal') contending that the PSC was obliged to extend the validity of the rank list by a further period up to one month after the last batch of those advised on 28.9.2020 commenced their training. As the training for the said last batch commenced only on 1.2.2021, it was their contention that the validity of the rank list had to be extended till 1.3.2021. It was further contended that inasmuch as the PSC had unilaterally extended the validity of all rank lists that had expired between the period from 5.2.2021 and 3.8.2021, up to 4.8.2021, their rank lists also had to be extended till the said date. However, the Tribunal dismissed the same having found no merit in the contentions of the petitioner.
It is in this light that the instant petitions have been filed herein.
On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended by Advocate P. Nandakumar that the PSC was obliged to extend the validity of the rank lists till 4th August 2021, in light of an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala HC which had done so regarding rank list which was issued in respect of the post of Sub Inspector of Police (General Executive Branch) (Trainee), in 2008. The gist of the argument was that since the PSC had already advised persons to vacancies that had arisen prior to the cancellation of the list on 4.9.2020, and the last batch of the said advised candidates had commenced their training on 1.2.2021, the provisions of the 1st proviso to Rule 13 mandated that the validity of the rank list be extended further taking note of the commencement of training of the said candidates.
On the other hand, the Standing Counsel of PSC P.C. Sasidharan, and Senior Government Pleader B. Unnikrishna Kaimal contended that the the expression "within a period of one year from the date of finalization of the ranked lists", in the 1st proviso to Rule 13, could not be ignored while determining the scope and extent of the provision. It was contended that the provision intended to permit an extension of the validity of the rank list for such period as would coincide with the expiry of one month from the date of commencement of the training course in respect of the last batch that was selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalization of the rank list. Additionally, it was contended that if the submission of the petitioners were to be accepted, it would result in the rank list being continually extended for periods in excess of what was contemplated under Rule 13.
Decision of the Court
While finding that to accept the contentions of the petitioners would well indicate that the same would result in an endless process of extension of rank lists until all the candidates in the list have been advised to the vacancies, the Court found that the same was contrary to the interpretation of the first proviso to Rule 13. It added that the previous Division Bench decision that had been relied upon by the petitioners also did not indicate that the same had to be done and that the reliance placed by the petitioners on the same was erroneous.
"...all that the Division Bench said was that the vacancies reported after the period of one year and up to one month after the date of commencement of training of the last batch advised within the one year period, had also to be taken into account by the PSC for issuing advices", the Court noted.
It added that,
"...We find that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the said judgment, to advance the contention that the validity of the rank list in question would have to be extended by such further period as coincides with the expiry of one month from the date on which the last batch of candidates advised during the extended period under the 1st proviso to Rule 13 commenced their training, is wholly misplaced. We also do not feel that the Division Bench... has taken a view contrary to our findings mentioned above".
Resultantly, the Tribunal decision was affirmed and the instant petitions were dismissed.
Case Title: Praveen K.R. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 528