AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC. versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1148, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1148 : 2024 INSC 1037
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc.
v.
The State of Kerala & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 14828 of 2024)
19 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the refusal of Kerala Public Service 
Commission to expand vacancies despite the directions of the 
tribunal.
Headnotes†
Service law – Recruitment – Expansion of rank lists – Kerala 
Public Service Commission-KPSC invited applications for the 
post of Junior Health Inspector for 14 districts of Kerala – Rank 
List published for the notified districts – Appellants sought 
directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the 
post on account of overlapping candidates in multiple lists, 
and several vacancies remained unfilled – Tribunal directed the 
State Government to decide on the expansion of the rank lists – 
State Government in compliance with the directions expanded 
the rank lists and sent recommendation to KPSC for necessary 
action – KPSC rejected the Government's recommendation – 
Said rejection challenged by the appellants  – Tribunal 
dismissed the same – High Court upheld the order passed 
by tribunal – Correctness:
Held: Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the 
selection process – KPSC functions as an autonomous body 
within the framework laid down by the Constitution – However, 
its autonomy confined to the conduct of the selection process – 
Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition
for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, 
which is the employer – Government is best positioned to assess 
its workforce requirements – KPSC’s mandate is to conduct the 
selection process in a manner that aligns with the Government's 
requisition – Notification issued clearly indicated that vacancies 
to be filled included those that might arise in future considering 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1149
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others
the extended duration of the selection process and the potential 
for additional vacancies to emerge over time – Neither logical 
nor equitable for the KPSC to disregard the Government's 
directives – KPSC’s refusal amounts to an overreach of its role – 
It was unreasonable for KPSC to deny the Government's request 
to expand the rank list when the process remains within the 
bounds of the original notification – Government’s request does 
not interfere with the selection process itself but pertains to the 
utilization of the rank list to address emergent needs – KPSC’s 
actions not only contrary to the Government's directives but also 
detrimental to the broader public interest – High Court's judgment 
failed to account for the unique circumstances of this case and 
overlooked the binding nature of the tribunal's order – High Court 
did not adequately address the implications of the Government's 
role in notifying vacancies and directing the expansion of the rank 
list – Government’s directives regarding workforce requirements 
are binding on the KPSC, provided they do not interfere with the 
integrity and sanctity of the selection process – Appellants are 
successful and meritorious candidates who duly placed in the rank 
list and not individuals who failed to meet the required standards 
or are seeking selection through an unwarranted expansion of the 
rank list – Penalizing appellants for
factors beyond their control 
not only violate the principles of fairness but also undermine the 
very objective of transparent and merit-based public recruitment – 
Relief granted not to be confined to appellants alone but extend to 
all candidates who have rightfully and meritoriously appeared in 
the rank list, having qualified the selection process – Rights of all 
eligible candidates upheld while aligning with the broader principles 
of equity, transparency, and merit-based public employment – Order 
passed by the High Court set aside – KPSC directed to expand 
the rank list to include the additional vacancies identified by the 
State Government – Constitution of India – Art. 320. [Paras 17-33]
Case Law Cited
State of Punjab v. Manjhit Singh & Ors [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 856 : 
(2003)11 SCC 559; Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana 
[1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of 
Procedure.
1150
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Service Law; Expansion of vacancies; Refusal to expand vacancies; 
Post of Junior Health Inspector; Overlapping candidates in multiple 
lists; Selection process; Kerala Public Service Commission, an 
autonomous body; Prerogative of the State Government; Integrity 
and sanctity of selection process; Overreach of role by Public 
Service Commission; Role of Government to notify vacancies; Role 
of Public Service Commission limited to selection; Merit-based and 
fair public employment; Erroneous interpretation of Public Service 
Commission's authority; Division of responsibilities between State 
Government and Public Service Commission.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 14828-
14829 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2024 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPKAT Nos. 298 and 311 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, Anand B. Menon, 
Radha Shyam Jena, Advs. for the Appellants.
Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
The present appeals arise from a judgment of the Division Bench 
of the High Court of Kerala dated 14.02.2024 in OP(KAT) No.298 
of 2023 and in OP(KAT) No.311 of 2023, upholding the decision 
of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal1 in O.A. Nos. 893/2023 and 
878/2023. The matter pertains to the recruitment process conducted 
by the Kerala Public Service
Commission2 for the post of Junior 
1	
 In short, “KAT”
2	
 In short, “KPSC”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1151
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others
Health Inspector Grade-II in the Municipal Common Service across 
various districts of Kerala. The dispute arose due to KPSC’s refusal 
to expand the rank lists for the said post, despite several vacancies 
remaining unfilled owing to peculiar circumstances surrounding the 
selection process.
3.	
The recruitment process commenced with KPSC issuing two separate 
gazette notifications. The first notification, dated 26.12.2014, was 
published under Category No. 571/2014, inviting applications for the 
post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Municipal Common 
Service for nine districts of Kerala. Subsequently, on 29.05.2015, 
KPSC issued another notification under Category No. 137/2015, 
inviting applications for the same post in five additional districts. Both 
notifications outlined the eligibility criteria and detailed the selection 
process, which included a common written test and an interview. 
Following the completion of these processes, KPSC published the 
rank lists for the notified districts. The rank list under Category No. 
137/2015 was issued on 12.02.2020 (Rank List No. 80/2020/SSV II) 
for some districts and on 19.02.2020 (Rank List No. 96/2020/SSV II) 
for the remaining districts. The appellants herein were included in 
these rank lists.
4.	
The appellants, along with similarly situated candidates, approached 
the KAT by filing O.A. No. 803/2019 and O.A. No. 178/2019,
seeking 
directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the post 
of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Malappuram district 
(Category No. 137/2015). The appellants contended that the number 
of candidates included in the main list was limited to 81, owing to 
the unscientific criteria adopted by KPSC in the selection process. 
They argued that the preparation of separate rank lists for different 
districts under distinct notifications led to overlapping candidates 
being included in multiple lists. This resulted in the premature 
exhaustion of the rank lists due to non-joining of duty, relinquishment 
of claims, or candidates opting for postings in other preferred districts. 
Consequently, several vacancies remained unfilled.
5.	
The KAT, considering the extraordinary circumstances arising from 
the selection process and the subsequent exhaustion of the rank 
lists, disposed of the original applications through a common final 
order dated 28.11.2022. The Tribunal directed the State Government 
to decide on the expansion of the rank lists, taking into account the
1152
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
observations made in its order. The State was instructed to place its 
decision before KPSC within three months, along with appropriate 
recommendations. KPSC was directed to take further action within 
two months thereafter. Furthermore, the concerned respondents 
were directed to provisionally report 50 vacancies from each district 
to KPSC within two weeks of the order. The interim order restraining 
KPSC from advising the last candidate under the open competition 
quota in the ranked list was also extended until compliance with the 
Tribunal’s directives.
6.	
In compliance with the Tribunal’s directions, the appellants and 
other affected candidates were heard by the Secretary, Personnel 
and Administration Reforms Department of the Government on 
25.01.2023. After considering the matter, the Government decided 
to recommend the expansion of the rank lists to fill the pending 
vacancies. Accordingly, a recommendation dated 15.03.2023 was 
submitted to KPSC for necessary action. However, KPSC, by its 
letter dated 04.04.2023, rejected the Government’s recommendation, 
stating that the rank lists had already included sufficient number 
of candidates based on the reported vacancies at the time of their 
preparation. KPSC relied on Rule 3 and Rule 4(iv) of the KPSC 
Rules of Procedure, which empower the KPSC to determine the 
number of candidates to be included in rank lists based on factors 
such as the number of vacancies
reported and the nature of the post. 
KPSC also emphasized that the validity period of the rank lists had 
already expired and that further expansion would create a negative 
precedent, leading to similar demands in the future.
7.	
Aggrieved by KPSC’s decision, the appellants filed O.A. Nos. 
878/2023 and 893/2023 before the KAT, challenging the letter dated 
04.04.2023. The Tribunal, however, dismissed these applications 
through its judgment dated 09.06.2023. Relying on the judgments 
passed by this Court in State of Punjab v. Manjhit Singh & Ors.3 
and Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana4 among others, 
the Tribunal held that interference with KPSC’s decisions regarding 
the preparation of rank lists was unwarranted. It was further observed 
that KPSC, as an autonomous selection body, possesses exclusive 
3	
[2003] Supp. 3 SCR 856 : (2003)11 SCC 559
4	
[1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1153
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others
authority to decide on matters related to the inclusion of candidates 
in rank lists. The Tribunal acknowledged the unique circumstances 
of the case, including the issuance of two notifications for the same 
post in different districts, which led to overlapping candidates and the 
premature exhaustion of rank lists. Nevertheless, it concluded that 
such issues did not justify judicial intervention in the administrative 
functions of KPSC.
8.	
The appellants subsequently approached the High Court, challenging 
the Tribunal’s order. The Division Bench of the High Court, through 
its common judgment, dismissed the petitions, affirming the Tribunal’s 
decision. The High Court held that while the Government serves as 
the employer and KPSC functions as a selection agency, neither 
the Government nor the Tribunal nor the Court has the authority to 
direct KPSC to modify or expand the rank lists to address unfilled 
vacancies. It was reiterated that KPSC retains full autonomy in such 
matters. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have filed the 
present appeals before this Court.
9.	
The High Court, in its impugned order, emphasized the autonomy 
and constitutional independence of the KPSC in the recruitment 
process, asserting that any interference by external authorities 
would undermine its intended purpose. The High Court extensively 
deliberated on the autonomy and constitutional
responsibilities of the 
KPSC while addressing the question of whether KPSC is obligated to 
act upon recommendations made by the State Government regarding 
expansion of the rank list. 
10.	 The High Court underscored that KPSC, as a constitutionally mandated 
autonomous body under Article 320 of the Constitution of India, is 
independent in its functioning and decision-making. The High Court 
highlighted that KPSC’s independence is enshrined in the Constitution 
to ensure fair and transparent recruitment, free from influence or 
arbitrariness. It highlighted that the Government cannot interfere 
with KPSC’s authority to prepare rank list as that would undermine 
KPSC’s independence and autonomy, which are vital to ensuring 
transparent and fair recruitment. While the Government, as the 
appointing authority, has the right to make recommendations to KPSC 
regarding the number of candidates required, such recommendations 
are not binding on KPSC. The High Court emphasized that KPSC 
has the discretion to either accept or reject these recommendations
1154
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
based on its established procedures and the constitutional mandate 
to uphold fairness in public employment.
11.	 The High Court clarified that neither the KAT nor the Courts have the 
authority to direct KPSC to expand the rank list or alter its decisions 
regarding the selection process. It held that such interference would 
compromise KPSC’s independence, which the Constitution explicitly 
protects.
12.	 The High Court outlined the framework of the recruitment process, 
which involves distinct stages: the Government’s responsibility to 
accurately report vacancies, KPSC’s role in preparing rank and select 
lists, and the final appointments by the Government. It stressed that 
the Government must report vacancies in a timely and efficient manner 
before KPSC initiates its selection process. Referring to its earlier 
judgment in O.P. (KAT) No. 441/2020, the High Court reiterated that 
guidelines were already laid down regarding how vacancies must 
be reported and how the shortlist should be prepared. It concluded 
that once KPSC adheres to these directions during the preparation 
of the rank list, no authority, including the Government, Tribunal, or 
Courts, can interfere or direct expansion of the list.
13.	 Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions challenging 
KPSC’s refusal to expand the rank list, affirming that its decision was 
consistent with constitutional principles and within its jurisdiction. It 
upheld
KPSC’s decision as within its autonomous jurisdiction and 
in alignment with constitutional principles and KPSC’s independent 
authority, as a constitutionally protected body tasked with ensuring 
merit-based and fair public employment.
14.	 We have heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the appellants. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the 
respondents, despite service of notice.
15.	 Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the appellants has made the 
following submissions:
15.1	 The High Court overlooked the constitutional mandate and 
regulatory framework under Article 320(3), which excludes 
determination of the number of vacancies from the purview 
of the KPSC. The appellants pointed out that the notification 
issued in 2014 led to the creation of a rank list in 2020, valid 
until February 2023, during which time eligible candidates
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1155
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others
were reported. This notification expressly included all potential 
vacancies that might arise in future, considering the protracted 
selection process, which took six years, and the fact that no 
subsequent recruitment process had commenced.
15.2	 The Government’s authority to notify the number of vacancies 
is not constrained to the period before publication of the rank 
list, as implied by the High Court. They asserted that such a 
restriction is not supported by the constitutional provisions or 
their plain reading. Furthermore, they highlighted that the KAT 
had, in its order dated 28.11.2022, where both the Government 
and KPSC were respondents, recognized an extraordinary 
situation wherein numerous vacancies remained unfilled due 
to duplication of candidates’ names across different rank lists. 
This order became final and was binding on the KPSC. The 
appellants criticized KPSC’s rejection of the Government’s 
recommendations, arguing that it effectively acted as an 
appellate authority without justification.
15.3	 The High Court in the impugned order failed to address the 
extraordinary situation of unfilled vacancies or the binding 
nature of the KAT’s order, possibly due to the absence of active 
participation by the Government or KPSC in the proceedings. 
They further pointed out the limited scope of the present appeal, 
involving only 27 candidates who seek to fill vacancies
without 
displacing others. Given the delay in initiating a new selection 
process, they urged this Court to consider the appeal on 
equitable grounds and allow these candidates to be appointed 
to the existing vacancies.
16.	 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants 
and having perused the material on record, we find merit in the 
appellants’ arguments and believe that it is imperative to look into 
the limits of the KPSC’s autonomy and its power vis-à-vis the State 
Government with regard to the selection process and employment 
in Government services.
17.	 The primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection 
process. It functions as an autonomous body within the framework 
laid down by the Constitution of India, ensuring transparency and 
merit-based recruitment. However, its autonomy is confined to the 
conduct of the selection process. Determination of the number of
1156
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative 
of the State Government, which is the employer. This fundamental 
distinction was overlooked by the High Court, leading to an erroneous 
interpretation of the KPSC’s authority.
18.	 The Government’s role in notifying vacancies is integral to the 
recruitment process. It determines workforce requirements based 
on administrative exigencies and operational needs. The KPSC’s 
mandate is to conduct the selection process in a manner that aligns 
with these requisitions. The present case underscores the need for 
clarity in division of responsibilities between the State Government 
and the Public Service Commission.
19.	 The notification issued in 2014 clearly indicated that the vacancies 
to be filled included those that might arise in future. This stipulation 
was made considering the extended duration of the selection process 
and the potential for additional vacancies to emerge over time. By the 
time the rank list was published in 2020, the administrative landscape 
had evolved, necessitating filling of more vacancies.
20.	 The Government, as the employer, is best positioned to assess its 
workforce requirements. It is neither logical nor equitable for the KPSC 
to disregard the Government’s directives in this regard. When the 
Government identifies the need for additional employees and directs 
the KPSC to expand the rank list to accommodate these vacancies, 
the
KPSC’s refusal amounts to an overreach of its role. This refusal is 
particularly egregious given the extraordinary circumstances, such as 
duplication of names in different select lists, which have contributed 
to the unfilled vacancies.
21.	 The selection process under the 2014 notification spanned 
approximately six years, culminating in a rank list published in 2020. 
The validity of this rank list extended until February 2023. During this 
period, the Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies 
arose. It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s 
request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly 
when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification.
22.	 The argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy 
of the KPSC is misplaced. The Government’s request does not 
interfere with the selection process itself but pertains to the utilization 
of the rank list to address emergent needs. The KPSC’s refusal to
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1157
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others
comply with this request reflects a narrow and restrictive interpretation 
of its role, which is not supported by the factual realities of this case.
23.	 The Government’s ability to function effectively hinges on its capacity 
to deploy adequate human resources. The unfilled vacancies have 
a cascading effect on governance and public service. The KPSC’s 
refusal to expand the rank list exacerbates these challenges, creating 
unnecessary bottlenecks in the recruitment process. The KPSC’s 
actions, in this case, are not only contrary to the Government’s 
directives but also detrimental to the broader public interest.
24.	 The appellants before this Court have waited for nearly a decade 
for the completion of the selection process. They stand to suffer 
irreparable harm if the rank list is not expanded to include them. 
The Government’s directive to select additional candidates under 
the same notification does not prejudice other aspirants, particularly 
since the next selection process has not yet commenced. On the 
contrary, it serves to mitigate the inequities caused by the prolonged 
recruitment process.
25.	 The principle of equity demands that the appellants’ grievances 
be addressed in a manner that balances individual rights with 
administrative exigencies. Denying them the opportunity to be 
considered for the additional vacancies under the 2014 notification 
would amount to a grave
injustice.
26.	 The High Court’s judgment failed to account for the unique 
circumstances of this case, including the duplication of names in 
multiple select lists and the resulting unfilled vacancies. It also 
overlooked the binding nature of the Tribunal’s order dated 28.11.2022, 
which expressly recognized the extraordinary situation and directed 
appropriate remedial action. This oversight has further compounded 
the hardships faced by the appellants.
27.	 Moreover, the High Court did not adequately address the implications 
of the Government’s role in notifying vacancies and directing the 
expansion of the rank list. By failing to engage with these critical 
issues, the High Court’s judgment does not reflect a comprehensive 
understanding of the factual and administrative complexities involved.
28.	 The Government’s directives regarding workforce requirements are 
binding on the KPSC, provided they do not interfere with the integrity 
and sanctity of the selection process. While the KPSC’s autonomy
1158
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
remains vital, it must be exercised within the confines of its role as a 
facilitator of recruitment and not as an arbiter of administrative policy.
29.	 We would further like to emphasise that the appellants in this case 
are successful and meritorious candidates who have duly qualified 
the selection process and secured their rightful place in the rank list. 
They are not individuals who failed to meet the required standards or 
are seeking selection through an unwarranted expansion of the rank 
list. Instead, these candidates have endured a prolonged wait due 
to administrative lapses, including the overlapping of names across 
multiple rank lists and the inadequate notification of vacancies. Such 
anomalies in the recruitment process have unfairly deprived deserving 
candidates of their rightful opportunities. Such administrative 
anomalies should not prejudice deserving candidates. Denying them 
the opportunity to be considered for unfilled vacancies disregards 
their merit and undermines the integrity of the selection process. It 
is imperative to ensure that such candidates are not penalized for 
circumstances beyond their control, as doing so would contradict 
the principles of fairness and equity inherent in public employment.
30.	 It is crucial to recognize that these appellants have already proven 
their merit and eligibility, and their inclusion in the rank list is a 
testament to their capability and diligence. The
mere fact that certain 
vacancies remained unfilled due to procedural and administrative 
inefficiencies should not result in these candidates being excluded 
from consideration. Moreso, as their employer-the State of Kerala had 
requested the KPSC to expand the rank list and recommend further 
names for appointment against existing vacancies.  Penalizing them 
for factors beyond their control would not only violate the principles 
of fairness but also undermine the very objective of transparent 
and merit-based public recruitment. Ensuring that these qualified 
candidates are given their due opportunity is both an equitable 
and constitutionally sound approach to address the extraordinary 
circumstances of this case.
31.	 The impleadment application bearing I.A. No.209123 of 2024, filed 
by eighteen other candidates appearing in the rank lists, is hereby 
allowed.
32.	 It is submitted by the appellants that the relief prayed for is limited 
to the twenty seven candidates before us, nine in the appeals 
admitted and eighteen through the impleadment application. The
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1159
Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others
relief granted in this case shall not be confined to these appellants 
alone but shall extend to all candidates who have rightfully and 
meritoriously appeared in the rank list, having qualified the selection 
process. This ensures that the benefit of the decision applies 
uniformly to all eligible candidates who were included in the rank 
list and are awaiting appointment. Extending the benefit under this 
decision to all candidates in the merit list is only fair and equitable 
since it is possible that other similarly placed candidates may not 
have approached this Court owing to financial or other constraints, 
which shall not be an impediment to their career prospects and 
a fair, merit-based selection process for public employment. The 
principle of fairness dictates that all such qualified candidates should 
be considered for selection through the impugned process, whether 
they are before us or not, although such selection shall be strictly 
in accordance with their merit and the requirements notified by the 
State Government. By directing the KPSC to expand the rank list 
and fill the additional vacancies, this Court seeks to uphold the rights 
of all eligible candidates while aligning with the broader principles of 
equity, transparency, and merit-based public employment.
33.	 The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of 
the High Court is set aside, and the KPSC is
directed to expand 
the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional 
vacancies identified by the State Government. The KPSC shall take 
all necessary steps to facilitate the selection process of the qualified 
candidates, as per their merit, in accordance with the requirement 
notified by the State Government, from the same selection process 
without any further delay.
34.	 Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the Case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain