JEBI GEORGE K. Vs. P.K.SURESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applications were invited for appointment to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II by notification dated 11.6.1991 of the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) which contained an omission. 10% of the vacancies earmarked for defence personnel - more particularly described below - as per the Special Rules were omitted to be included in the notification: i. Ex-service personnel; ii. Wife and children of Ex-service personnel; iii. Wife and children of serving Jawans; and iv. Dependant brothers and sisters of Ex-service personnel and serving Jawans. The omission was noticed at the time of publication of the ranked list on 6.11.1995 by the PSC wherein the results of 10% of the total number of candidates were withheld obviously to accommodate the defence personnel.

(2.) The PSC published an addendum notification dated 13.2.1996 confining the recruitment to the four omitted categories of defence personnel and a ranked list was consequently published on 5.6.1998. The addendum notification clarified that the expiry of the ranked list of the omitted categories will synchronize with the expiry of the earlier ranked list which is 5.11.1998. But it so happened that the ranked list dated 6.11.1995 was being operated upon and candidates advised even before the second ranked list dated 5.6.1998 was published. The Government on the request of the PSC granted permission to publish an integrated seniority list which was challenged before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the direction of the PSC and has held that the seniority of those who were advised from the ranked list dated 6.11.1995 cannot be tinkered with. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged by those who have been advised by the PSC for appointment pursuant to the ranked list dated 5.6.1998 published later.

(3.) We cannot gloss over Rule 27(c) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 which is categoric that the seniority shall be determined by the date of first effective advice made for appointment. We cannot say that the advice of the candidates from the ranked list dated 6.11.1995 was not 'effective' merely because the ranked list dated 5.11.1998 was in succession. The mere fact that the advice memos contained an inscription that 'the combined seniority will be intimated later' does not make the advice by the PSC not effective. This makes the decision in V.A.Raman v. K.V.John and others [(1998) 9 SCC 442] distinguishable wherein the letter of the PSC explicitly stated that 'the advice is only provisional'. Nothing precluded the petitioners from challenging the notification dated 11.6.1991 or the ranked list dated 6.11.1995 soon after it was published when the said omission was noticed. It will be unjust to adversely affect the seniority of those advised from the ranked list date 6.11.1995 when the same was merrily operated upon by the PSC and the State. The ranked list dated 6.11.1995 was not held up or frozen during the processing of the second ranked list dated 5.6.1998 and the earlier advisees are not in any way responsible. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in interfering with the purported move to publish an integrated seniority list by the order impugned and the same does not call for any interference. The original petitions are dismissed. No costs.