ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 24-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
625
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 625
625
ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2020)
APRIL 24, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976
– rr.13 and 14 – Applications invited for appointment to the posts
of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) – Selection process completed,
the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) on 11.09.2013
published the first Ranked List (RL-I) – On 04.11.2013, KPSC issued
first advice on the basis of RL-I – KPSC’s decision to have a unified/
consolidated ranked list was challenged by way of OA for not
having two lists; a main and a supplementary list (which would
include candidates from reserved category) – Tribunal granted
interim relief on 05.12.2013 – KPSC issued second advice in respect
of empanelled candidates in RL-I who had secured more than 49
marks on the basis of RL-I on 20.01.2014 – Tribunal allowed OA –
High Court dismissed the petitions – Supreme Court upheld the
consolidated RL-I – During the pendency of aforesaid SLPs, KPSC
released second Ranked List (RL-II) on 26.05.2015 and thereby
RL-I was treated as ceased to exist on 25.05.2015 – On 11.11.2015,
KPSC made final advice, third advice from RL-I – RL-III notified –
Aggrieved by publication of RL-II, appellants had filed OAs inter
alia seeking direction for issuance of advice on the basis of RL-I
(till that list ceases to exist) – Dismissed – Writ petitions filed by
appellants for direction inter alia to advice (or appoint) 93 Non
Joining Duty (NJD) vacancies on the basis of RL-I – DB referred
the matter to Full Bench which inter alia held that RL-I expired on
01.06.2016 – Held: On a plain reading of r.13 it is clear that the
Ranked List published by KPSC would remain in force for a period
of one year from the date it was brought into force – It continues to
be in force until the publication of a new list after the expiry of the
minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years,
whichever is earlier – First proviso is an exception to the general
rule – It predicates that the general rule shall not apply in respect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
of Ranked List of candidates for admission to training courses that
leads to automatic appointment to services or posts – In such cases,
the Ranked Lists shall cease to be in force after one year from the
date of finalization of Ranked Lists or after one month from the
date of commencement of the course in respect of the last batch
selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of
finalisation of the Ranked Lists, whichever is later – RL-I was
published on 11.09.2013, but because of fortuitous situation, the
final (third) advice from RL-I was made by KPSC on 11.11.2015
and the last batch of 339 candidates so advised was sent for training
on 01.05.2016 – Resultantly, the consequence provided by first
proviso to r.13 got triggered, whereby RL-I ceased to operate in
law, w.e.f 01.06.2016 – Interim order passed by the Tribunal on
05.12.2013, in no way interdicted the operation of RL-I – As a matter
of fact, none of the advised candidates from RL-I had secured less
than 49 marks in preliminary examination– Appellants not entitled
to base their claim in reference to RL-I, which ceased to exist on
01.06.2016, by filing writ petition(s) on 12.10.2017 for the stated
reliefs – NJD vacancies reported after 01.6.16 must be filled up
from amongst the empanelled candidates in the fresh Ranked List,
RL-II published on 26.05.2015 or RL-III published on 14.03.2019,
as the case may be – Judgment of Full Bench upheld – Kerala High
Court Act, 1958 – s.7 – Constitution of India – Arts.142 and 309 –
Principles of Actus curiae neminem gravabit; lex non cogit ad impossibilia
– Service Law.
Practice & Procedure – Reference by Division Bench –
Exercise of jurisdiction by Full Bench – Discussed – Kerala High
Court Act, 1958 – s.7.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for the
procedure on Reference to Full Bench. On a plain reading of
Section 7, it is amply clear that the Full Bench is competent to
finally decide the case itself. It is an enabling provision. Full Bench
was fully conscious about the limited scope of enquiry in Reference
placed before it, but after due consideration of all aspects, deemed
it necessary to analyse the factual matrix of the case in its correct
perspective to justly answer the Referen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.