Feros Khan and Others vs Kerala Public Service Commission and Others

C.S. Rajan, J.—The first Respondent invited applications by notification in 1991 from qualified candidates for recruitment as Police Constables in the Armed Police Battalion. Pursuant to the above notification the Petitioners applied. They were called for the written test. Subsequently they appeared for physical efficiency test, verification of physical measurements etc. Finally after the selection process was over, the first Respondent published Ext. P-3 ranked list of candidates for the post of Police Constables in the Armed Police Battalion (M.S.P.) which was brought into force with effect from 25th August 1992. The Petitioners were rank Nos. 1407, 1398, 1396 and 1419 respectively. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 belong to Backward Community. The second Petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Candidates belonging to Muslim community to which the Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 belong were called for the training up to rank No. 1394. The Scheduled Caste candidates up to rank No. L 386 were called for the training.

According to the Petitioners 17 candidates for whom memos were sent by the first Respondent did not report for training. Therefore if these 17 vacancies were reported to the first Respondent, the Petitioners are sure of getting memos calling for training by the first Respondent. When the first Respondent issued fresh notification for the appointment to the post of Police Constables which appeared in the Gazette dated 5th December 1995 (Ext. P-4). The Petitioners filed the present Original Petition seeking for a direction to the first Respondent to advise candidates from Ext. P-3 ranked list to the vacancies of 17 persons, (N.J.D. vacancies), who failed to report for duty. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 on 20th March 1996. In the above counter-affidavit the Respondents 1 and 2 took the stand the Petitioners were not advised as their turn did not arise during the tendency of the ranked list. It was further submitted that the 1.7 N.J.D. vacancies were reported to the P.S.C. only after the date of expiry of the ranked list. An additional counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the first Respondent on 2nd August 1.996. The above counter affidavit reveals the following facts: The ranked list expired on 25th August L995. During the tendency of the above ranked list 1.7 N.U.D. vacancies were reported to the Public Service Commission as per letter dated 15th July 1995 which was received in the Office of the Public Service Commission at Trivandrum on the same day itself. The above letter was forwarded to the District Office, Malappuram on 1st August 1995 which was received by the district office on 7th August 1995. In the meanwhile the appointing authority reported 157 fresh vacancies for advice as per letter dated 22nd July 1995 which was received in the Office of the P.S.C. at Irivandrum on 24th July 1995. The above requisition letter was also forwarded to the District Office at Malappuram on 1st August 1995 which was also received at Malappuram on 7th August 1995.

Thereupon the second Respondent took steps for working out the rotation in respect of 174 vacancies (157 plus 17). The Section Officer requested for certain clarifications regarding the advice of candidates who did not join duty. The clarification in this regard was received by the District Office on 19th October 1995. By the time the ranked list got expired. The additional counter affidavit proceeds to state that according to the procedure followed by the Commission in respect of N.J.D. vacancies, the date of clarification is taken as the date on which the vacancies were reported for advise. Accordingly the candidates were not advised against the above 17 N.J.D. vacancies. However advice were sent for 157 vacancies.

Sri M.A. Manhu, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the above stand of the P.S.C. is arbitrary and discriminatory. The P.S.C. should not have entered into an unnecessary enquiry whether the 17 candidates really received the appointment order and as to whether the real cause for not joining duty. The P.S.C. acted illegally and wasted time in making such unnecessary enquiries when the P.S.C. fully knew that the life of the ranked list is going to expire, within a few days. I think the Petitioners were right in contending that the P.S.C. acted illegally and without any authority of law in probing into the real reasons for the N.J.D. vacancies. When they received the report of the existence of the N.J.D. vacancies on 15th July 1.995, the P.S.C. should have started the exercise of advising the candidates in accordance with the rules of reservation to the above 17 N.J.D. vacancies. After receiving the requisition letter on 7th August 1.995, the second Respondent took steps for working out the rotation in respect of 174 vacancies which included 17 N.J.D. vacancies. Thereafter the Section Officer doubted the correctness of the N.J.D. vacancies. It is rather strange and unfortunate that the unnecessary doubt raised by the Section Officer stood in the way of the Petitioners getting their appointments. There is no reason which can be spelt out in the two counter-affidavits filed by Respondents 1 and 2 for the doubt which arose in the mind of the Section Officer. Though it is stated in the additional counter affidavits that the procedure followed by the Commission in respect of N.J.D. vacancies is that the date of clarification is taken as the date on which the vacancies were reported for advice, no rule, order or even practice was pointed out in the two counter-affidavits. Even if there is such a rule, order or practice, I have no hesitation to state that such a procedure is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. The only sure date that can be reckoned for the date of reporting of vacancies is the date of receipt of the letter of requisition which in this case is 15th July 1995. It is immaterial to consider what happened in the Office of the P.S.C. thereafter. The delay in the movement of files in the Office of the P.S.C. in the matter of getting any clarification cannot adversely affect the rights of the Petitioners to get their names advised in accordance with law. Therefore in order to prevent any recurrence of such arbitrary action on the part of the P.S.C., I declare that it is always the date of receipt of the requisition of vacancies by the appointing authority that is the relevant date to be considered for the purpose of advising candidates.

Therefore I allow the Original Petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to advise 17 candidates from among the persons included in Ext. P-3 ranked list within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appointing authority will issue the necessary appointment orders to those candidates within two weeks from the date of receipt of advice from the P.S.C. It is also made clear that the dates of advise of these candidates must be the same dates on which 157 candidates were advised by the P.S.C.