IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 17352 of 2006(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. AGI K.J., KOLLANNUR HOUSE, P.O.MINALUR, THRISSUR-680 581. 2. ANNIE JOSE T, THEKKINIYATH HOUSE, WEST FORT, THRISSUR- 4. BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE MR.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.B.HOOD FOR R1 ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC KPSC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 11916 OF 2005 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON 16/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 17352/2006-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN “THOZHIL VEEDHI” DATED 06/04/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 19/06/2006 IN CATEGORY NO.6/2005 PUBLISHED BY K.P.S.C EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED IN THOZHILVEEDHI DATED 28/06/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/06/2006 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER 30/06/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/08/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 17352/2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ISSUED TO PETITIONERS. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 23/11/2006 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN LAW. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUD BY THE COMMISSION. EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE RNK LIST NO.212/06/SSIV/NO.6/2005 ISSUED ON 23/01/2006 BY THE PSC. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CNDIDATES FOR THE POST OF LECTURERS WITH THE MARKS AWARDED TO THEM AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WBSITE OF PSC. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ K. M. JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------------------------- I.A. NO. 16561/06 IN W.P.C. NOS. 17352/06 N, I.A.NO.16542/06 IN W.P.C.NO.18409/06 N, & I.A.NO.16545/06 IN W.P.(C) NO. 23799/06 G ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2006 ORDER Since common issues arise as they do in these Applications, I am passing a common Order. 2. The Applications are filed seeking stay of the operation of the rank list published by the Public Service Commission in regard to the post of lecturer in Law. Case of petitioners is that this Court passed interim orders directing that they be called for interview and without calling them for interview, the Public Service Commission has proceeded to publish the rank list. Petitioners were not called for interview apparently for the reason that they have not secured sixty marks in the Written Examination. Sixty marks was prescribed as cut off marks. Essentially, the Writ Petitions challenge the said prescription. It WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 2 is their case that having regard to the number of vacancies available, preparing a short list with only sixteen persons in the main list is itself vulnerable to attack, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh (AIR 2003 SC 4580) and the Bench decision of this Court in Dr. S. Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Others (2006 (3) ILR 641) following the decision in State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh (AIR 2003 SC 4580). The interim order passed on 21.8.2006 in W.P. (C) Nos. 17352 & 18409/06, inter alia, provides as follows: “ Therefore, the Kerala Public Service Commission is directed to invite the petitioners in these Writ Petitions also for interview for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers in Government Law Colleges provisionally. It is made clear that mere participation in the interview will not confer any right on the petitioners to stake a claim to be included in the final select list or for selection. This order is being issued only provisionally and this shall be made clear in the interview card, if any, to be issued to the WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 3 petitioners.” 3. It is pointed out that though the Public Service Commission carried the matter in appeal, the Division Bench also refused to interfere with the direction to interview the petitioners, but modified the order by directing that all those persons who have secured higher marks than the petitioners also should be interviewed. It is pointed out that the interim order in W.P.C. Nos.17352 & 18409/06 came to be passed as early as on 21.8.2006, but the Public Service Commission refused to comply with the order. But, at the same time, the Public Service Commission proceeded to publish the rank list. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the conduct of the Public Service Commission betrays contempt of Court and a meaningful reading of the orders passed by this Court should have meant that the Public Service Commission which is bound to act fairly, should have refrained from showing undue haste in proceeding to finalise and publish the rank list which, if not prevented from being implemented, will result in a mockery of WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 4 the orders of this Court besides causing irreparable injustice to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the Public Service Commission that there is no merit in these Applications. Counsel would point out the terms of the interim order directing interview to be held. He would submit that it was made clear that there was no right by virtue of the order to be included in the rank list. He would submit that persons included in the rank list are not parties and, therefore, the Applications deserve to be dismissed. He would further submit that stay may not be warranted having regard to the order passed in Writ Petition No.25848/06 by the learned Judge who, in fact, has passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners. It reads as follows: “Learned standing counsel submits that there was no deliberate delay in finalising the ranked list. Steps are being taken to do the needful. It is also submitted by learned standing counsel that some of the candidates who were not included in the short list had approached this WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 5 Court and filed Writ Petitions which necessitated the Commission to move the Division Bench for appropriate directions. The Division Bench had admitted the Writ Appeal and in one case an interim order of stay was also passed. All these had resulted in some unavoidable delay. It is made clear that it will be open to the Commission to proceed with the finalisation of the ranked list since the Division Bench has not issued any direction to that effect.” He would submit that what is involved is appointment to a teaching post and any delay in filling up those vacancies would first and foremost impact the academic interest of the students most adversely. He also relied on the Judgment of this Court in Dr. S. Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Others (2006 (3) ILR 641) to contend that it may not be justified to stay the rank list already published. It is pointed out that persons included in the rank list are persons who are of greater merit than the petitioners and on the strength of the vacancies, if the plea of the petitioners is countenanced, it may at best justify the bringing out of another WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 6 list. 5. Shri R. S. Kalkura, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the additional respondents in W.P.C. No. 17352/06, who are persons included in the rank list, supports the contentions of the Public Service Commission. He would also submit that even relying on the decision of the Division Bench in Dr. S. Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Others (2006 (3) ILR 641), the right of the petitioners cannot possibly extend to seeking a stay of the rank list. He would further submit that their comparative merit is unquestionable and their appointments may not be stalled. 6. There cannot be any doubt that this Court directed the petitioners to be interviewed. It is also not in doubt that in the Writ Appeal filed by the Public Service Commission, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, the Division Bench directed calling all those who have secured higher marks than the petitioners also for the interview. Orders passed by Courts are meant to be complied with. In particular, the direction to WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 7 interview in two Writ Petitions, as already noted, was passed as early as in August, 2006. At the time when the Court passed the orders, no doubt, the Court has subjected it to the usual condition that it is meant to be provisional, and that it will not confer a right to be included in the rank list. However, can it mean that the order of the Court be not implemented and yet, the rank list is prepared and published and be operated ? I would think that in the facts of these cases, it may not be just and fair to permit the Public Service Commission to operate the list when the Public Service Commission has not complied with the direction to interview the petitioners. Operating of the list would, I feel, create grave injustice and render the petitioners high and dry. Depending on the result of the interview and the final decision in the Writ Petitions, lies the fate of the rights of the petitioners. No doubt, the learned Single Judge of this Court has in W.P.(C) No.25848/06, observed that it is open to the Commission to proceed with the finalisation of the rank list. It is to be noted that the petitioners were not made parties in W.P. WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 8 (C) No.25848/06. In W.P.(C). No. 18409/06 there is a further complaint about there being infirmities about some questions. If the list is not stayed, certainly advice would be made followed by appointments. If the Commission had at least conducted the interview and if it is revealed that taking note of both the marks obtained at the written examination and interview, none of the petitioners are eligible to be included in the list above the persons already listed, it would have been a totally different matter altogether. As far as impleading of necessary parties is concerned, as pointed out by the petitioners, they have some difficulty in so far as they are not in a position, as submitted by them, to implead the parties, as their names and addresses are not available. But, they have expressed willingness to implead the persons, of course, apart from the persons in the rank list who have already got themselves impleaded. One of the contentions raised by counsel for respondent Commission, is based on the directions issued in Dr. S. Ajayan's case supra. That was a case where the final rank list was published, and the WP(C) 17352/06 & CONN. CASES. 9 Court took note of the fact that since candidates who are already selected were not made parties in the Writ Petition, the petitioner's case may be considered only after exhausting the existing list. Here, I think the facts are not the same. It is also to be noted that in the light of Dr. S. Ajayan's case supra, the contentions of the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos. 17352, 18409/06 & 23799/06 cannot be brushed aside as totally untenable. Therefore, in such circumstances, I feel that, interest of justice requires that the order of stay should continue. Accordingly, the order of stay is extended until further orders. H/O. to both sides. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.