GREESHMA N.P., Vs. INDU P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fifth respondent in O.A. No. 1371 of 2016 has filed this Original Petition challenging the order dated 16.2.2018 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short), Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned order, the KAT has allowed the O.A. The O.A. was filed by candidates who had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Malayalam, English and Hindi pursuant to Ann. A1 Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short). The PSC published a short list on 31.7.2015 based on a preliminary OMR test conducted on 8.8.2014 which is evidenced herein by Ann.A2. The applicants in the O.A. who are respondents 1 to 3 herein were included in the supplementary list. They contended that, they were eligible to be included in the main list after the second examination was conducted, on the basis of the marks obtained in the second test.

(2.) According to the Public Service Commission, the first test that was conducted, was for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates. In the present case, the number of applicants had exceeded 100 and therefore, a procedure of shortlisting was adopted. After the first test was conducted, the PSC had drawn up a main list containing 582 candidates and a supplementary list. The supplementary list was prepared for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of appointing persons who were entitled to the benefits of reservation. The said list was prepared by lowering the cut off marks in the case of such persons. However, since they were entitled to be considered for appointment to the open vacancies also, they were included in the final list that was published. It is contended that, the procedure adopted does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

(3.) According to Adv.Elvin Peter, who appears for the petitioner, his client is a person who has been ranked in the main list after the preliminary test was conducted. However, as a result of the procedure followed by the Public Service Commission, persons belonging to the reservation category who had not been successful in clearing the preliminary test have been included in the main list on the basis of their rank in the supplementary list prepared. It is contended that since the supplementary list had been prepared only for the purpose of satisfying the reservation principles, such candidates are to be kept separate, to be considered for appointment only to the posts that are available to be filled up through such candidates. The present system would confer an unfair advantage on them in view of the fact that they would be considered for appointment to open vacancies also, causing substantial prejudice to the more competent persons who are included in the main list on the basis of their merit. It is therefore contended that, the selection requires to be interfered with and corrected. Ann. A5 decision of the Apex Court is also relied upon to contend that both the tests conducted are to be taken into account for the purpose of ranking in the present case since the initial test was not conducted as a method of shortlisting the candidates.