KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. S ANITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are in these cases called upon to examine the correct interpretation of R.15(a), (b) and (c) and the two provisos thereto of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer in Opthalmology in the Medical Education Department. Learned Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission as well as the contesting candidates submitted that the learned Single Judge on a wrong interpretation of the second proviso to R.15(c) as well as on a misunderstanding of the facts held that the benefit of temporary pass over having gone to open competition candidates, the communities which lost the benefit in the process need not be compensated.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the distinction between No Candidate Available (NCA) turn and the Temporary Passing Over (TPO) turn and reached a wrong finding that the TPO turn if it has gone to open competition candidate, need not be restored. Counsel submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge that "the moment the benefit of temporary pass over goes to open competition, the turn against the original pass over withers away" is incorrect, and is a complete misreading of the rules. Counsel submits that the rule never postulates such a situation and the finding of the learned Judge to that extent is faulty and incorrect. Counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the scope of the provisos to R.15(a) and 15(b).

(3.) Counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No. 1642 of 2007 submitted that it was made clear in the counter affidavit filed by the PSC that the turn available to reservation community was not lost to them if required number of reservation candidates are not appointed to maintain the 50% reservation in that recruitment year. Counsel submitted only in a case where open candidates were appointed due to absence of reservation candidates in the rank list, second proviso to R.15(c) would apply. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners supported the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the benefit of temporary pass over having gone to open competition candidates, the community which lost the benefit in the process need not be restored in view of the second proviso to R.15(c).