THE DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE & ANR. ETC. versus DR. SUSMI C.T. & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 573
573
THE DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE
& ANR. ETC.
v.
DR. SUSMI C.T. & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 7537-7544 of 2021)
DECEMBER 08, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Service Law – Selection – Right of selected candidates – Extent
and ambit of – Candidates complaining that some vacancies had
been kept back and not reported –Held: Right of those who find a
position in the ranked list is to be advised against vacancies which
arise during the currency of the list, and which are reported – In
the present case, it was as against vacancies that were reported to
the State Public Service Commission, that the candidates had some
semblance of a right – However, as far as those not reported are
concerned, the candidates cannot claim a right per se – It is possible
that in given situations, the State may be lethargic, or even may not
wish to report vacancies – In such situations, undoubtedly the
individuals awaiting appointment may have recourse to judicial
remedies – In such proceedings, the government or the concerned
agency can furnish a suitable explanation – If that is found to be
arbitrary, appropriate directions may follow – However, the
procedure in all such cases, would be to consider the State’s
response– Remedy – Judicial Review.
Practice and Procedure – Judgment – Challenged by the State
against only one party – Propriety – Held: The State or any public
agency, cannot be precluded from challenging a judgment, on the
ground that it approaches the court, filing an appeal against only
one party – Even if in that case, the normative basis of the judgment
under appeal is disturbed, and the issue concerns a matter having
public ramifications, such as tax, or recruitment, the final judgment
would bind all concerned – In the present case too, therefore, the
High Court’s reasoning that the state had not filed petitions against
other persons, was flawed; that ipso facto should not have precluded
an examination of the merits of the orders of the Tribunal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Shankersan Dash v. Union of India [1991] 2 SCR 567
– followed.
Shenoy & Co v. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 2 SCC
512 : [1985] 3SCR 659 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 3SCR 659
relied on
Para 23
[1991] 2 SCR 567
followed
Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.7537-
7544 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2019 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.P. Nos.657/2019 in O.P. (KAT) No.256/
2019, R.P. No.659/2019 in O.P. (KAT) No.24/2019, R.P. No.660/2019
in O.P. (KAT) No.17/2019, Common Judgment dated 24.07.2019 in O.P.
(KAT) Nos.286 and 287/2019 and Common Judgment dated 19.06.2019
in O.P. (KAT) Nos.17 and 24/2019.
Pallav Sishodia, Sr. Adv., G. Prakash, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms.
Beena Prakash, Manan Sanghai, Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh, Arindam Ghosh,
Karthik Jayashankar, Prakash Baghel, Sanand Ramakrishnan, P. A. Noor
Muhamed, Jishnu M. L., Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Roy Abraham, Adithya
K. Roy, Himinder Lal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appealswere heard finally with the consent of the counsel
for the parties.
3. The appellant (hereafter referred to as the “Director”)is
aggrieved by the impugned final judgment and order dated 24.07.20191,
as well as orders dated02.07.20192 and 19.06.20193 passed by the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
1R.P. No. 657/2019, R.P. No. 659/2019, R.P. No. 660/2019, OP(KAT) No.286/2019,
OP (KAT) No.287/2019
2OP(KAT) No. 256/2019
3OP(KAT) No. 17/2019 and OP(KAT) NO. 24/2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
4. The Director had filed petitions challenging orders of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the “KAT”) which had
required the reporting of 28 vacancies in the post of Medical Officer
(Ayurveda), Assistant Insurance Officer in the Department of Indian
System of Medicine (hereafter referred to as the “posts”).
5. The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to
as the “KPSC”) issued a notification on 19.11.2014 eliciting applications
from amongst eligible candidates for the posts. The first respondent along
with several others applied for these posts. These candidates were
included in the ranked list published on 19.11.2014. In accordance with
the rules governing KPSC, the Department in question- i.e. Indian System
of Medicine and Insurance Medical Service (hereafter re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.