PREMCHANDRAN P. N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these special leave petitions claimed that he was entitled to be considered for filling up of two vacancies arising in the Indian Administrative Service in respect of non - civil service officers. Since two vacancies were available, in keeping with the ratio of the names of candidates to be nominated for the said two posts, ten names were required to be nominated by the State Government for such selection. At the relevant point of time, since there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner, his name was not included within the list of ten candidates.

(2.) THE petitioner thereupon moved Writ Petition No. 33375 of 2009 before the High Court and obtained an interim order whereby the State authorities were directed to include the petitioner's name in the list of nominated candidates. As it appears from the facts as disclosed, the name of the petitioner was included at Serial No. 11 of the said list. Since the interim order had been complied with and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of nominated candidates, the writ petition was subsequently closed at the instance of the petitioner on 3-6-2010. Thereafter, having regard to the selection process, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which disposed of the matter on the ground that the petitioner had already obtained his relief by virtue of the interim order. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15897 of 2010 before the Kerala High Court against the said order of the Tribunal.

(3.) MR V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petition, urged that since the petitioner had been found by the Tribunal to have topped the list of candidates, his name ought to have been at Serial No. 1 of the select list which was ultimately prepared, but instead he was placed at Serial No. 4. One of the main grievances advanced by him was that the persons who were ultimately placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 and were selected for appointment to the two vacancies, had been awarded 5 marks each under Regulation 5(ii) which ought not to have been awarded to them. It was his case that had the marks not been awarded, the petitioner would have been on top of the list. It was also urged that right at the initial stage, when the petitioner's marks were computed on the basis of the guidelines, he had been denied a certain number of marks which could ultimately have a bearing in the selection process. As far as the finding of the High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition is concerned, Mr Giri urged that the relief prayed for by the petitioner before the High Court was such that could have been given both under Art.226 of the Constitution and by the Central Administrative Tribunal.