Praveen Kumar K.P. vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Sathish Ninan, J.

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) to issue advise memo for the post of Deputy General Manager of the 4th respondent Bank, before the expiry of the ranked list.

Ext.P1 is the notification dated 16.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent PSC, inviting applications for the one post of Deputy General Manager in the District Co-operative Bank, Kasaragod. The petitioner participated in the selection process and secured rank No.3. Ext.P3 is the ranked list dated 12.07.2008. Subsequently the list was revised. Ext.P4 is the revised ranked list dated 31.05.2019. As per the same, the petitioner is rank No.4.

On  22.07.2019,  the  PSC  issued  Ext.P5  advise memo to the holder of rank No.1. He did not join. Thereupon, on 28.11.2019, the NJD vacancy was reported. Thereafter on 12.12.2019, the PSC issued Ext.P6 advise memo to the holder of rank No.2. He also did not join. The NJD vacancy was reported on 03.12.2020. However, the PSC did not issue advise memo to the 3rd ranked person since, in between, the District Co-operative Bank merged with the State Co-operative Bank on 29.11.2019.

The petitioner contends that the PSC is bound to issue the advise memo. It was also claimed that the 3rd ranked person has relinquished his appointment as per Ext.P7 relinquishment letter dated 26.02.2021. Therefore, the petitioner being the holder of rank No.4, is entitled to be issued with advise memo. The ranked list is to expire on 11.07.2021. It is in the above background that the petitioner has approached this Court.

I  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  on  either side.

On 09.07.2021, this Court had passed an interim order in the writ petition directing the PSC to issue advise memo to the holder of rank No.3. The PSC preferred an appeal against the order as W.A.No.888 of 2021. The Division Bench stayed the interim order. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single judge for the reason that, “the Division Bench is in seisin of the main issue”. Subsequently, on 13.08.2021 the writ appeal was disposed of, restoring the writ petition.

The main contention of the PSC is that, the District Co-operative Bank for which the selection process was held has ceased to exist consequent on the amalgamation with the State Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for issuance of advise memo from the ranked list prepared for an erstwhile institution.

Identical issue had come up for consideration before this Court in an earlier writ petition, i.e., in W.P.(C)No.14915 of 2020. Therein also the notification and the ranked list were prior to the amalgamation of the District Co-operative Bank to the State Co-operative Bank. This Court held that the process of appointment can go on and advise memo issued from the existing ranked list.

In the case at hand, the qualification prescribed for the post of Deputy General Manager in the erstwhile District Co-operative Bank and the State Co-operative Bank is one and the same. The Board of the State Co-operative Bank in its meeting held on 03.02.2020 adopted Ext.R4(c) resolution accepting the selection process commenced under Ext.P1.

Through the reply affidavit and additional affidavit, the petitioner has placed on record Exts.P8 and P9 documents to contend that, under similar circumstances, after amalgamation, the PSC had issued advise memos from the existing ranked list. Ext.P8 relates to the District Co-operative Bank, Kasaragod. Therein, the NJD vacancy was reported on 19.12.2019, i.e., after the date of amalgamation, namely, 29.11.2019. Even thereafter, on 24.12.2019 the PSC issued advise memo. Similarly, Ext.P9 relates to the District Co-operative Bank, Kannur. Therein, the NCA notification was issued on 29.12.2017. Even after the amalgamation on 29.11.2019, the PSC published ranked list on 06.09.2021 and issued advise memo based on the said list on 11.10.2021.

In the light of the above, including the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.14915 of 2020 noticed supra, I am unable to uphold the contention of the PSC that, consequent to the amalgamation of the District Co-operative Bank into State Co-operative Bank, no appointments could be made from Ext.P4 ranked list prepared prior to amalgamation. The said contention of the PSC is thus negatived.

The learned counsel for the PSC would next contend that the ranked list expired on 11.07.2021 and therefore no appointments could be made therefrom.

The writ petition was filed on 19.03.2021 much prior to the date of expiry of the ranked list. In W.A.No.888 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court had issued an interim order dated 15.07.2021, wherein it was ordered that, even if the writ appeal is ultimately dismissed, the expiry of the ranked list would not be of any consequence and that the NJD vacancy shall be deemed to have been reported during its validity. The relevant portion of the order reads thus;

“3. …...... The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the ranked list is to expire shortly and the non reporting of the NJD vacancy likely to arise now, will seriously prejudice the appellants. We make it clear that if ultimately the writ appeal is dismissed and it is found that the present interim stay order has prevented the reporting of the NJD vacancy likely to arise, before the expiry of the ranked list, then the appellants' contention regarding the serious prejudice caused by the interim stay order will be seriously considered. In such a scenario, it will be open to the appellants to contend that the NJD vacancy should be treated to have been reported before the expiry of the ranked list and suitable directions could be issued to the appointing authority to ensure that the prejudice caused is dealt with adequately, if the writ appeal is finally dismissed.”

The writ appeal was finally disposed of as per the judgment dated 13.08.2021. Therein, the Division Bench reaffirmed the protection order given in its interim order above. Therefore, the contention of the PSC that, since the ranked list has expired, no advise memos could be issued to the candidates in the said list, has no force. PSC was a party to the writ appeal and is bound by the directions therein.

Now I proceed to the contention that, the holder of rank No.3 has relinquished the appointment under Ext.P7 letter dated 26.02.2021 and therefore the petitioner, who is rank No.4, is entitled to be issued with the advise memo. It is to be noticed that, the said 3rd rank holder is arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The 3rd respondent appeared through a counsel and vouched before this Court that the 3rd respondent has relinquished his appointment. However, as contended by the PSC, the relinquishment is to be made in the format prescribed. Admittedly, that has not been done. It is for the 3rd respondent to have the appointment relinquished in the manner as prescribed.

On the above discussions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the PSC (respondents 1 and 2) to proceed to issue advise memo from Ext.P4 revised ranked list dated 31.05.2019, for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager.