T.Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Others

K.V. Eapen, Member A

The issue to be settled in this O.A is if the name of a State Police Service (SPS) Officer appears in the Select List of a particular year prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for filling up of vacancies in the Indian Police Service (IPS) whether the same can be deleted without notice in the final notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the same day? Further, another related question is whether the Government while appointing the members of the SPS to the IPS on the basis of the duly prepared Select List can simply omit the name of an individual appearing in the Select List from the final notification in the IPS on the ground that he was not a member of the SPS on the date of the said notification? In other words, the second question relates to whether appointments to the IPS cannot be made for officers who are retired from the SPS at the time of issue of appointment to the IPS.

The applicant in the O.A was a member of the SPS of Kerala. SPS officers in Kerala retire at the age of 56 and the applicant retired from service in the SPS on 31.05.2019. Having retired from service from 31.05.2019, he was no longer a member of the SPS and was not included in the notification on 30.09.2021 for appointing members of the SPS to the IPS from the Select List 2018. In this connection, the meeting of the Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 was held in New Delhi on 24.06.2021 for considering the members of the SPS of Kerala for promotion to the IPS against the vacancies of 2018. The minutes of this meeting produced at Annexure A-4 in the O.A., reveal that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs had determined 11 vacancies to be filled in the Select List of 2018. From the minutes it is seen that the Selection Committee had noted that in the case of four officers who had already retired from the SPS (which also included the officers at Sl.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of the final notification for the IPS from the Select List of 2018) there was a direction from this Bench of the Tribunal that their retirements would not be a bar for their consideration for promotion to the IPS cadre in the vacancies of 2018, if they were eligible otherwise as per rules and the existing regulations. It is noted that the cases of the three retired officials, namely, Shri.A.R.Premkumar, Shri.Mohanan.D. and Shri.Amose Mammen were specifically considered by the Selection Committee at para 4.3 of the minutes. It was also noted that as per the guidelines framed by the Commission to facilitate consideration of State Service Officers for promotion to All India Services in line with the respective Promotion Regulations, the notional date of reckoning the availability of eligible officers in the State Service for consideration for promotion is to be taken as 31st December of the vacancy year. It was, inter-alia, recorded at para 4.3 as follows :

“4.3 .......Shri.Amose Mammen had retired from service on 30.09.2019 and as such he was available as on 31st December 2018 for consideration for the year 2018. However, in view of the above mentioned orders of the Tribunal, the names of Shri.Robert.C.F., A.R.Premkumar, Jayakumar.K.(Jr.), Mohanan.D and Johnson Joseph.M., have been included in the eligibility list of 2018 for consideration for the Select List of 2018 although they were not available in State Police Service upto 31st December, 2018. The Committee, therefore, considered them accordingly.”

From the above notings it is clear that the Selection Committee had considered officials who had retired even during the year 2018 from the SPS on achieving the age of 56 for promotion to the IPS on the basis of Select List of 2018 on the basis of orders passed by this Tribunal in the individual applications to the Tribunal. Shri.T.Ramachandran, the applicant in this O.A., who appeared in the list of officers to be considered, however, had not approached this Tribunal earlier unlike the others. He thus had not secured any orders in his case unlike the three officials mentioned earlier. However, this fact did not preclude the Selection Committee from considering his case along with others in its meeting on 24.06.2021, even though he had retired on 31.05.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation (56 in the SPS). In its meeting on 24.06.2021 the Selection Committee found 11 officers suitable for promotion for the IPS and Shri.T.Ramachandran, the applicant in this O.A., appeared at Sl.No.2 of the list of names. Subsequently on 30.09.2021 the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide a notification produced at Annexure A-5 in exercise of the provisions contained in Regulation 7(3) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 issued the Select List for the year 2018 as approved by the UPSC on the basis of the selection done by the Selection Committee in its meeting. Shri.T.Ramachandran appears at Sl.No.2 of the Select List without any remark against his name. In the columns against the names of Shri.A.R.Premkumar at Sl.No.1, Shri.Jayakumar.K.(Jr.) at Sl.No.3, Shri.Mohanan.D at Sl.No.4 and Shri.Amose Mammen at Sl.No.5, however, the number of the O.A along with the date of order has been indicated whereas this is left blank against Shri.T.Ramachandran at Sl.No.2 It is, therefore, to be inferred by this that Shri.T.Ramachandran had not appeared and secured an order from this Tribunal relating to the consideration of his name for promotion to the IPS, notwithstanding, his retirement from the SPS. However, this again did not stop the UPSC from including his name in the Select List of 2018. On the same day ie., on 30.09.2021 the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification under Rule 9(1) of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read with Regulation 9(1) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 appointing the members from this Select List 2018 to the IPS on probation and allotted them to the Kerala Cadre. In this list, however, the name of Shri.T.Ramachandran does not appear, whereas, the names of all others in the Select List including the retirees mentioned above appear, except for one Shri.Jayakumar.K (Jr.) who had been included in the Select List, provisionally, subject to clearance in the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and granting of integrity certificate by the State Government. Thus, the final notification dated 30.09.2021 for promotion to the IPS on the basis of the Select List 2018 included the name of officials who had retired from the SPS but had got orders from the Tribunal for their names to be considered, which Shri.T.Ramachandran had not done. The said notification is produced by the applicant in this O.A at Annexure A-6.

From the above narration of the facts at hand the issue, therefore, to be considered is what was outlined at the outset, ie., once an official's name appears in the Select List for a particular year whether his name can be deleted in the final notified list to the IPS on the ground that he was already retired from the SPS and was thus not a member of the service and neither had he secured orders from the Tribunal for his name to be considered. It is the submission of the applicant that once his name appeared in the Select List and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, the 1st respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs is not allowed to review or revise the same and thus has no authority to effect any changes or alterations in the Select List. He also seeks support for his position from the Regulation 9 (a) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 where under the heading “Powers of the Central Government not to appoint in certain cases”, it has been indicated as follows :

“ Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations the Central Government may not appoint any person whose name appears in the Select List, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest;

“Provided that no such decision shall be taken by the Central Government without consulting the Union Public Service Commission.”

(Emphasis added)

It is the contention of the applicant that there had been no consultation with the UPSC before any decision for not including the applicant in the final notification was taken. He submits that this is not possible once his name appeared in the Select List of 2018. If he was not found eligible there should have been a specific reason which should have been recorded and intimated to him as to why it had not been done. In any case, as already indicated, no such decision could be taken by the Central Government as per Regulation 9 (a) without consulting the UPSC. No proof has been brought in the reply filed or even subsequently that such consultation was indeed done by the Government in Ministry of Home Affairs with the UPSC, before denying him appointment to the IPS. Further, Regulation 9 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 also lays down that appointment of a member of the SPS, who has expressed his willingness to be appointed to the Service, shall be made by the Central Government in the order in which the names of the members of the SPS appear in the Select List for the time being in force during the period when the Select List remains in force. Further, the denial of appointment of the applicant by the 1st respondent is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is not in public interest as required under Regulation 9 (a). The Selection Committee in para 4.3 had also indicated that the notional date of reckoning the availability of eligible officers in the State Service for consideration for promotion is to be taken as 31st December of the vacancy year. Even by that criterion, as of 31st December 2018, he was in service as he retired only on 31.05.2019 from the SPS. In fact, there are at least two other officers who appeared in the final notification who were included inspite of the fact that they had retired within 2018 itself. Shri.Mohanan.D and Shri.A.R.Premkumar had retired in 2018 itself and were thus not available in the State Service as on 31st December 2018. The applicant, therefore, prays that he too should be included in the notification for the IPS based on the Select List of 2018.

The respondents have filed a reply statement in which they submit that in terms of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the State Governments, UPSC and the Ministry of Home Affairs have their own specific roles to play in the process of appointment by promotion of SPS officers to the IPS. As per Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the State Government is responsible for forwarding the initial proposal for consideration of the Selection Committee in the UPSC. The UPSC then convenes the meeting of the Selection Committee and forwards the recommendations of the Selection Committee to the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government forwards its observations on the recommendations of the Selection Committee to the UPSC. The State Government also forwards a copy of the recommendations along with its observations to the Central Government. The Central Government then sends its observations on the recommendations of the Committee to the UPSC. Thereafter, the Commission approves the recommendations of the Selection Committee and conveys it to the Central Government. After this, based on the prevailing Rules and Regulations, the Central Government issues the notification appropriately. It is submitted that in this matter the Selection Committee met on 24.06.2021 and prepared recommendations. The UPSC, in exercise of the powers under the provisions contained in Regulation 7(3) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 approved the Select List of the year 2018 on 03.08.2021. The Ministry of Home Affairs notified the Select List on 30.09.2021 as per the Annexure A-5 notification.

It is submitted that even though the name of the applicant was included in Annexure A-5 Select List notification, he could not be included in Annexure A-6 final notification of the IPS in terms of Regulation 9 (1) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 since he stood retired from SPS as on the date of notification of the said appointment. Since the applicant had retired from the State Police Service on 31.05.2019, he was no longer a member of SPS and thus could not be appointed on 30.09.2021. It is submitted that the respondent (Ministry of Home Affairs) has acted strictly in terms of the Regulation 9 (1) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and there has been no deviation from the rules. It is submitted that the existing regulations need to be uniformly applied in all cases and it cannot be modified for the applicant alone. It is submitted that in the past there have been many cases where officers who were in the Select List of previous years had retired before the date of appointment and were denied appointment to IPS cadre on the basis of the Regulation 9 (1) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. It is further submitted that it is not necessary that all officers who find a place in Select List is to be promoted to IPS. As such, there is no illegality in not appointing the applicant to IPS since he was no longer a member of SPS at the time of consideration. Rule 9 (1) of the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 allows the Central Government, on the recommendations of the State Government concerned and in consultation with the Commission, to recruit to the service persons by promotion from amongst the substantive members of a SPS in accordance with the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. It is submitted that Regulation 9 (1) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 regulates the appointment to the service from the Select List, which, in turn, clearly refers to “a member of the State Police Service”. As such, appointment to IPS cadre cannot be done unless he/she is a member of the SPS. In other words, an officer who stands retired at the time of appointment cannot be 'appointed' to IPS cadre. In the instant case the applicant retired from service on 31.05.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation, much before the time of appointment of others to the IPS.

In addition to the above there are other references made in the reply statement relating to the order produced at Annexre A-3 in the O.A passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.213/2020. It is submitted that this Tribunal had relied on the judgment in Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575] and Union of India v. Vipin Chandra Harilal Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721 while passing the orders. However, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v.K.H.Srinivasan and others [2008 (9) SCC 461] had allowed the appeal filed by Union of India contending that the decision in Syed Khalid Rizvi's case (supra) and Vipin Chandra Harilal Shah's case (supra) had no application after the amendment in 1997 and that the Regulations have been amended with effect from 1997 by Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 1997 and that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the effect of the amendment, more particularly, the proviso (c) to Regulation. It is submitted, therefore, that Annexure A-3 order of this Tribunal has no application in the instant case and cannot be treated as a precedent.

We have considered the above contentions and examined the documents relied upon. We have also closely heard Shri.M.P.Asok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Smt.O.M.Shalina, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 (Ministry of Home Affairs) and Shri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 (UPSC). We are not going into the issue brought out by the respondents regarding our orders produced at Annexure A-3 in the O.A as we find that the matter to be considered is on a different basis. What is to be considered here is whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (the 1st respondent) decision not to include the name of the applicant in the notification for IPS issued on the basis of the Select List of 2018 and produced at Annexure A-6 in the OA can be justified. The relevant Regulations, in this regard have been brought out in detail earlier. First, let us consider the point made in Regulation 9(a) that the Central Government need not appoint any person whose name appears in the Select List if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest. However, there is a proviso to this power under Reglation 9(a) that no such decision shall be taken by the Central Government without consulting the UPSC. It is not clear from the reply statement filed nor in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents, whether such consultation with the UPSC had indeed taken place by the Central Government. In any case, no evidence of the same has been provided in the reply statement or otherwise. Second, even if the consultation had taken place the public interest involved is not clear. In addition to these points Regulation 5 indicates that the Selection Committee should ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of the SPS, as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the IPS. It has been further provided in Regulation 5 (3) that a member of the SPS who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year, in which the Committee meets, shall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for consideration on the first day of January of the year or of any of the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting is held but could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or years. There does not seem any bar on consideration of the name of the applicant under these provisions.

The respondents seem to have mainly relied on the provisions of Regulation 9(1) which indicates that the appointment can be made only from the 'members of the SPS'. It is their position that in this case the applicant had ceased to be a 'member' owing to his retirement on 31.05.2019 which meant that on the date of the Selection Committee Meeting on 24.06.2021 or on date of the notification on 30.09.2021 he was no longer a 'member of the service'. However, as pointed out earlier, as many as three other officers namely, Shri.A.R.Premkumar, Shri.Mohanan.D and Shri.Amose Mammen whose names figure in the final notification had already retired by the date of the Meeting of the Selection Committee. Indeed, it appears that in two of these three cases they had retired on earlier dates than the applicant and within the vacancy year 2018 itself! On the other hand, the applicant was still in SPS at the end of the vacancy year 2018 (31.12.2018). His only fault appears to be that he had not approached this Tribunal in time before the Selection Committee Meeting to get necessary directions that his retirement from the SPS would not stand in the way of his name being considered for his promotion to the IPS in the vacancy of 2018, if he was otherwise eligible as per rules and regulations. In the interest of fairness and equity it is not perhaps correct for this Tribunal to hold that merely because an official did not appear before it in time and secure such orders that he should not be considered. We note that it is surprising that the respondents have not indicated anything about the fact of retirement of the other officials in the reply statement not stopping their consideration for appointment into the IPS, whereas they have indicated the retirement in the case of the applicant as the main (if not the sole) reason for their non consideration of his case for promotion to the IPS. We are at this stage also not going into the issue relating to the delay in holding of the Selection Committee Meeting which arguably could also have played a part in the non selection to the IPS in time in the Select List of 2018. Selection to the vacancies in the IPS depends upon the number of vacancies as well as the position in the zone of consideration for a particular vacancy year. Suffice it to say that the only draw back in the case of the applicant which appears as a result of the details in the case is that he did not appear before this Tribunal well in time and secure the necessary orders for his case to be considered unlike the others. In this connection, we have observed that rather than the officers of the SPS or indeed from the State Civil or Forest Service, who have retired at the age of 56, approaching us individually for getting orders for consideration for further promotion into All India Services like the IAS, IPS or IFS, it could have been better for the Central Government Departments like Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Forest and the DoP&T to take a decision in consultation with the State Government that the retirement of the officials from State Civil, State Police or State Forest Services at the age of 56 years, which is the age of retirement in the State of Kerala for State Government officials, should not stand in the way of their being considered for promotion to the IAS, IPS or IFS respectively. It is not anyone's case that pushing senior officials to come to this Tribunal or to higher judicial forums to secure such orders for their consideration for promotion is in anybody's best interest. It is clearly the case that the problem has arisen due to the fact that the retirement from State Services are at the age of 56, whereas the retirement from the Government of India is at the age of 60 years. With open mindedness and coordination we would suggest that this problem be settled by the issue of a circular by the appropriate authorities in coordination which would stop the flow of these officials to this Tribunal praying to secure such orders in future. We, however, make these observations purely in the spirit of consideration by the authorities concerned if it is possible to do so under the Regulations/Rules applicable.

Similar matters have been considered earlier by this Tribunal in O.A.No.744/2013 connected with O.A.No.750/2013 and O.A.No.778/2013, as brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is noted that in a common order in these O.As issued on 14.10.2013 this Tribunal had dealt with an almost identical matter. In these O.As, all the applicants were members of the Kerala Police Service and were eligible for consideration for appointment against 13 vacancies as on 01.01.2010 for the IPS of Kerala cadre. However, they had all attained the age of superannuation of 56 years and had retired on various dates in 2011, 2012, 2013 etc. The applicants in these O.As were considered for appointment to the IPS in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 21.12.2012. The UPSC approved the Select List of 2010 which included the names of all the applicants, along with the Select List of 2011, on 05.07.2013. The Select List was notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 06.08.2013. On the same day, similar to this case where both the two notifications at Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 were issued on the same date ie., 30.09.2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs notified the appointment of 6 members of the Kerala Police Service from the Select List of 2010 to the IPS in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9(1) of the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read with Regulation 9(1) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. However, the applicants in these O.As and another candidate who was provisionally included in the Select List of 2010 were excluded. The applicants then filed the above O.As praying to be included in the notification for promotion to the IPS as they had been duly selected by the Selection Committee and approved by the State Government. This Tribunal relied upon earlier orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.240/2012 as well as in O.A.No.217/2012 and connected cases. It was indicated as follows at paras 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of O.A.No.744/2013 and its connected cases (O.A.No.750/2013 and O.A.No.778/2013) :

“10. The Selection Committee considered the eligibility as on 01.01.2010 of all those who are in the zone of consideration for appointment to the Indian Police Service on 21.12.2012 and prepared the Select List of 2010 on the basis of merit which was approved by the UPSC on 05.07.2013 and was notified on 06.08.2013. The delay in holding the meeting of the Selection Committee and in notifying the Select List and appointment to the Indian Police Service cannot nullify the eligibility of the applicants to the Indian Police Service on the ground of retirement on account of lower age of superannuation in the State Police Service, if they have not attained the age of superannuation in the Central Government. In the circumstances of the instant cases, the right course of action for the respondents was to deem the applicants to be members of the State Police Service to meet the requirement of Regulation 9(1) of Regulations, 1955. In a situation, where age of superannuation is relevant, the age of superannuation in the Central Government should prevail in the interest of uniformity at national level.

The first respondent, as per records, failed to consider whether the exclusion from the notification of appointment to the Indian Police Service dated 06.08.2013, of the names of the applicants who had not attained the age of superannuation in the IPS and who were selected on the basis of merit and were in the Select List notified on 06.08.2013 is in the public interest or not under 9(a) of the Regulations, 1955 in consultation with the UPSC.

In the result, we hold that the exclusion of the names of the applicants from Notification No.1-14011/11/2012-IPS-I(II) dated 06.08.2013 issued by the first respondent is legally unsustainable and contrary to the Regulations.

The respondents knew or should have known the dates of retirement of the applicants from the State Police Service. The applicants were selected on merit by the respondents themselves for appointment to the Indian Police Service. They were willing and ready to work as IPS officers on notifying their appointment to the Indian Police Service. They were illegally denied promotion to the IPS and they suffered loss of work and income on account of the failure of the respondents to hold the meeting of the Selection Committee in time. Here the principle of 'no work no pay' will not apply. In the interest of justice, they should be compensated.

Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under :

Notification No.1-14011/11/2012-IPS-I(II) dated 06.08.2013 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside to the extent it excludes the names of the applicants in the Select List of 2010 shown therein. The first respondent is directed to make a fresh notification for appointment to the Indian Police Service including all the names in the Select List of 2010 other than the name of the person provisionally included, in the Notification No.1-14011/11/2012-IPS-I(I) dated 06.08.2013, with effect from 06.08.2013. The applicants shall be entitled to all service benefits with effect from 07.08.2013 including pay and allowances. Appropriate orders shall be issued by the concerned authorities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”

The above order would show that this Tribunal had considered a very similar matter and had found that the exclusion of the name of the applicant from notification dated 06.08.2013 issued by the 1st respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs, was legally unsustainable and contrary to the regulations. This Tribunal had also set aside the notification issued to the extent that it excluded the names of the applicants in the Select List of 2010. The 1st respondent was directed to make a fresh notification for appointment to the IPS including all the names in the Select List of 2010 (other than the name of the person provisionally included) in the notification with effect from 06.08.2013. It was also held that the applicant would be entitled to all service benefits with effect from 07.08.2013 including pay and allowances. In addition to this order which has been provided by the learned counsel for the applicant during arguments, another notification relating to the promotion to the IPS in 2017 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (1st respondent) has been furnished in the rejoinder at Annexure A-7. It is contended that in Annexure A-7 notification that two members of the SPS, namely Shri.Rajeev.P.B and Shri.N.Vijayakumar had retired from the SPS on 31.05.2019 and 31.08.2018 respectively and were not in service on the date of appointment ie., on 30.09.2020, the date of issue of notification on the basis of the Select List of 2017 for promotion to the IPS. It is submitted that by this notification 7 officials were appointed to the IPS on the basis of the Select List of 2017 and all 7 had retired and were not continuing in the SPS on the said date of appointment on 30.09.2020. Thus, it is contended that the fact of retirement precluding consideration of appointment to IPS has not been taken into consideration even in previous selections based on the Select List. Further, the respondents have not made it clear whether they have actually consulted with the UPSC as it is mandatory under the Regulation 9(a) before issuing the appointment orders to the IPS excluding the name of the applicant who was in the Select List for 2018. As mentioned earlier, no proof has been produced to establish this position. At the same time, no reasons have been given to indicate as to why the applicant was excluded from the list inspite of other retirees being included even though all the others should have been impacted by the same regulation which has apparently been relied upon in excluding the name of the applicant.

Thus, for the reasons elucidated above, we are unable to accept the exclusion of the name of the applicant from the notification dated 30.09.2021 at Annexure A-6 promoting members of the SPS to the IPS based on the Select List of 2018. The applicant has every right to be considered along with others who were also retired but had managed to secure orders for consideration in their individual cases. In coming to this conclusion, we have relied on the findings of this Tribunal in O.A.No.744/2013 and connected cases as well as the points indicated at para 9 above onwards. We, therefore, direct the authorities ie., Ministry of Home Affairs to include the name of the applicant in the IPS based on the Select List 2018 by amending the notification at Annexure A-6 dated 30.09.2021 and including his name at the appropriate place in the list of officers indicated therein. We note that there were as many as 11 vacancies for the IPS for the year 2018 and the list produced at Annexure A-6 contains only 9 names. There should thus be no problem for the respondents to include the name of the applicant at the appropriate position. We also direct that this may be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or in any case before the next notification for selection into the IPS of Kerala Cadre based on the Select List of 2019/2020 is finalized by the Selection Committee/UPSC, whichever is earlier as it is understood that the process for finalizing the Select List for 2019/2020 for the IPS vacancies of Kerala is currently underway.

The O.A is allowed to the extent as indicated above with these directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dated this the 18th day of March 2022)