KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. DINEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1strespondent filed O.A.No.1719 of 2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. He sought to set aside Annexure A5 ranked list to the extent it failed to show him as an other backward community candidate. Consequential reliefs including his advise for appointment were also sought. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application. It was, however, directed further that rights of the 2nd respondent, who was already appointed, should not be affected. Kerala Public Service Commission, aggrieved by that order, filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 were applicants for selection to the post of Attender Grade II in Homoeopathy Department in Kottayam District. In Annexure A5 ranked list, the 1strespondent was placed at 14 and the 2ndrespondent was placed at 18. The 1strespondent claimed reservation available to other backward communities. In his profile, he claimed that he belongs to other backward community and produced Annexure A2 non-creamy layer certificate. His caste was shown in Annexure A2 as Pattariyas. The caste name shown in his SSLC is Padmasaliya. The petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancy, consequent to which he produced Annexure A3 wherein the Village Officer certified that the petitioner belonged to Hindu-Padmasaliya (Pattarya) community.