Praveen Kumar K.P. vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Sunil Thomas, J

The petitioner is ranked number 4 in the rank list of PSC for the post of Deputy General Manager, in the District Cooperative Bank, Kasargod,

published on 12/7/2018. Since 1st and 2nd rank holders did not join duty successively, vacancies were reported as NJD. 2nd NJD vacancy was

reported belatedly on 3/12/2020. In the meanwhile, the District Co-operative Bank was merged with State Co-operative Bank, to form Kerala Bank.

In spite of reporting of NJD, respondents 1 and 2 have not advised 3rd respondent, the third rank holder, to join. He is stated to have given Ext.P7

relinquishment letter, since he got employed elsewhere. Rank list is to expire on 4/8/2021. Petitioner hence sought issuance of advice memo to the

petitioner.

2 . Vehemently opposing the original petition, the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for PSC was that, with the constitution of the Kerala

Bank, the earlier rank list have ceased to exist and no appointments have been made from such rank lists till now.

This court by an interim order dated 9/7/2021 directed the first respondent to issue advise memo to the third respondent within a period of five days

from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, both sides submitted that the interim order dated 9/7/2021

was under challenge in a writ appeal and the learned Division Bench had stayed the operation of the above interim direction.

PSC has filed a detailed counter affidavit traversing the various claims of the petitioner and contending that the respondent had not and cannot issue

advice to the candidates who are included in the rank list of District Cooperative Bank, after amalgamation of the Bank. It was also contended that by

virtue of the constitution of the bank, a new entity has come into existence and the vacancies cannot be filled up by the State Co operative Bank after

it has statutorily been brought into operation, from the rank list of the District Co-operative Bank .

A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner. It was contended that the stand of the PSC that they had not and cannot make advise to the

candidates who are included in the rank list of the District Co operative bank after amalgamation of the bank was factually incorrect. It was asserted

that contrary to what was stated in the affidavit, the very same respondent had issued advice memos to the candidates who are included in the ranked

list of peons/watchman in District Co-operative Bank, Kozhikode District(Category No.649/2017) in the NJD vacancies on 24/12/2019i.e.much after

the date of amalgamation. It was stated that the NJD vacancies were reported on 19/12/2019 and the advice memos were issued thereafter. A copy

of the rank list as well as the appointment charts to the above post were produced as Ext.P8. It was also stated by the petitioner that the above act of

the respondent PSC is wrong in the light of the fact that the PSC had issued advice memo to the 2nd rank holder on 12/12/2019 and in pursuance to

the same, interim board as per resolution No.63 had resolved to appoint the advised candidate even after amalgamation. It was also asserted that the

second respondent had issued advise memo to the candidate even after amalgamation and the 4th respondent has reported NJD vacancy to the

commission on 2/12/2020. In spite of this, it was alleged that, the second respondent was taking fierce measures by not making advise to the 3rd

respondent society and thereby denying a valuable chance to the petitioner.

Yet another contention advanced by the petitioner was that Rule 185(3) (1) of KCS Rules which deals with the appointment of Deputy General

Manager has not so far been amended or deleted by the new Act 1 of 2019. Hence the recruitment to the post still holds good., it was argued.

Though the above factual assertion on the basis of Ext.P8 was not denied by the PSC, learned standing counsel tried to sideline the above specific

assertion by an unsustainable contention that factual assertions so made in the reply affidavit cannot be treated as part of the pleadings. In the light of

the above, there are materials on record to indicate that the stand taken by the PSC that it had not advised any candidate after amalgamation is

factually incorrect. PSC which is the prime constitutional commission, constituted with the object of advising Government on all matters relating to

recruitment, is expected to act fairly and uniformly, from which they can deviate only at their risk and costs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision of this court in V.Dineshkumar and others v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank

Ltd. and others( W.P.(C) Nos.14915/2020). In this decision at para 6, it was held that though the District Co-operative bank on amalgamation ceased

to exist, the vacancies in existence before the date of amalgamation and recruitment process which had already been initiated can be continued. On

the legal premise, I agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the above decision.

However, while placing on record the submissions of the learned counsel for either side and the documents produced along with the counter

affidavit, since the learned Division Bench is in seizin of the main issue, I am not inclined to pass any further orders.

Having considered this, by recording the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of.