Sebastian P. Joseph v. K. S. R. T. C. — 1998 DIGILAW 415 (KER)

Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioners were included in the ranked list prepared by the P.S.C. for appointment to the post of Reserve Conductors in the K.S.R.T.C., which was brought into force with effect from 18.5.1992. The prayer in the Original Petition is to declare that all the vacancies of Reserve Conductors in the K.S.R.T.C. which arose during the validity period of the ranked list are liable to be filled up from that list, even if those vacancies are reported after the period of validity of the list. I would have disposed of this Original Petition without much difficulty following the Full Bench decision reported in Vintala Kumari v. State (1994(2) KLT 47). But Sri. M.R. Rajendran Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners made a fervent plea that the above Full Bench decision did not take into consideration R.14 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the rules), According to the learned counsel the above decision relied only on R.13 of the Rules. Therefore, I am constrained to deal with the question whether it makes any difference if R.14 is also considered in order to decide this question. R.13 of the Rules reads as follows: "13. The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier." (provisos omitted) R.14 is also re-produced for easy reference: "14. The Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive in the order of seniority, if any and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable." The Full Bench ruling (Vimalakunuiri 's case) arose out of a review petition filed by the petitioners therein. The petitioners therein were included in the ranked list of candidates selected for appointment as Sales Tax Officers. The above ranked list was brought into effect from 31.10.1984. Originally this Court directed the Government to report 7 vacancies to the P.S.C. for advice. The petitioners therein were included in the ranked list of candidates selected for appointment as Sales Tax Officers. The above ranked list was brought into effect from 31.10.1984. Originally this Court directed the Government to report 7 vacancies to the P.S.C. for advice. There are 4 more vacancies which remained to be reported as per the order of the learned single Judge. This court held that the question of directing the P.S.C. to advise the petitioners did not arise because the ranked list expired. In the Review petition it was argued that the observation that the rank list having expired, the question of directing the PSC to advise the petitioners does not arise is not the correct position of law. It was further contended that notwithstanding the expiry of the ranked list, this Court was entitled to command the Government to compel the P.S.C. to advise the names of the petitioners as there were vacancies available. Finally, after an elaborate discussion with a number of rulings of this Court on the point, the Full Bench held that if not request was made by the State to-the P.S.C. for advising candidates during the currency of a list, the Court could not compel the P.S.C. to advise the candidates after the expiry of the list. 2. Now I will consider whether R.14 of the Rules would make any difference with regard to the above proposition. According to R.14 of the Rules the Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive in the order of seniority, if any, and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable. What is the period of life of a ranked list has been prescribed in R.13. Therefore, it is only on a combined reading of Rr.13 and 14 it could be held that the Commission can advise candidates for all the vacancies reported during the currency of She list. It is quite clear that the vacancies must be reported during the period when the ranked list is kept alive. No other interpretation is possible on a reading of these two rules. 3. It is not as if this question was not considered by this Court in earlier rulings before the Full Bench pronounced on the matter finally. It is quite clear that the vacancies must be reported during the period when the ranked list is kept alive. No other interpretation is possible on a reading of these two rules. 3. It is not as if this question was not considered by this Court in earlier rulings before the Full Bench pronounced on the matter finally. Suffice to mention the ruling of this Court reported in Jyothish Kumar v. State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 444), wherein it was held that a realistic understanding of R.14 would clearly lead to the inference that the PSC is entitled to and has also a duty to advise candidates even after the lapse of the ranked list, provided the vacancies concerned are reported to the P.S.C. during the period when the ranked list is alive. 4. Earlier, a Division Bench of this Court in the ruling reported in Balakrishnan v. Public Service Commission (1994 (1) KLT 490) has also considered the impact of both Rr.13 and 14 of the Rules. In the above case also, it was argued that the vacancies could be reported at any time, that is. even after the expiry of the list, provided the vacancies arose prior to the expiry of the ranked list. But the Division Bench did not subscribe to the above view. It was held that the vacancies should have arisen prior to the expiry of the ranked list and the reporting of such vacancies should also take place before the expiry of the ranked list. If any other interpretation is given to R.14 of the Rules, it would lead to so many anomalous situation. Finally the Division Bench observed as follows: "It may be noticed that under R.13 of the P.S.C. Rules of Procedure,the ranked list published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years which ever is earlier. So we are of the view that the vacancies shall be reported by the appointing authority before the expiry of the ranked list and if any vacancies are reported subsequent to that date the Public Service Commission is not competent to issue advice memo under R.14." 5. Thus on a review of these rulings, I do not find any necessity to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench in Vimala Kumari's case. I am in respectful agreement with the above ruling. Therefore, this Original Petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.