The Kerala High Court stated that only the Kerala Public Service Commission has the authority to decide on extending the duration of the ranked list.

The Kerala High Court stated that only the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) has the legal authority to decide on extending the duration of its ranked lists, as per the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of its Rules of Procedure. In this case, both the PSC and candidates from the ranked lists published in 2023 and 2024 for the Fire and Rescue Officer (Driver) (Trainee) position contested a Tribunal order. The Tribunal had extended the validity of a ranked list from October 10, 2019, because an interim order in a different case had limited its duration.

The Division Bench, consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. M. Manoj, remarked that the PSC is a constitutional body and is solely responsible for deciding on extensions under the specified rule. Advocate P.C. Sasidhara represented the PSC, while Advocate P. Nandakumar represented the opposing party. The case details indicated that the PSC had called for applications for the Fireman Drivercum-Pump Operator (Trainee) position based on a 2017 notification, with the ranked list effective from October 10, 2019, which was later canceled by the PSC in 2020.

A challenge was made regarding the qualifications for the position of Fireman Driver-cum-Pump Operator (Trainee) while the ranked list was active. The Tribunal issued a temporary order preventing the PSC from advising candidates on the ranked list, which was to last until January 18, 2021. After dismissing the challenge, a new application was submitted to extend the validity of the ranked list for the time the interim order was in effect, from December 18, 2019, to January 18, 2021. This request was granted. Candidates from the 2023 and 2024 ranked lists then sought the Court’s help to extend the validity of their lists.

The Bench observed that 62 vacancies were reported while the ranked list was active, and once the case was resolved, all necessary advisories were issued without any restrictions on reporting vacancies. Following a new notification, 80 additional vacancies were reported. The Bench referred to Rule 13, which states that a published ranked list is valid for one year, but it can remain in effect until a new list is published after at least one year or until three years have passed, whichever comes first. According to the 4th proviso of Rule 13, if no candidates are advised within one year, the ranked list’s validity can be extended up to three years, and for an additional year if the situation persists. The 5th proviso of Rule 13 allows the PSC to keep the ranked list active for a specified period if the Government imposes a general ban on reporting vacancies, with a minimum extension of three months and a maximum total of one and a half years.

1. The Bench believed that the Tribunal misunderstood the ruling in KPSC v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair (1977 KHC 287), which was confirmed by the Full Bench in Unnikrishnan Nair G.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (2) KHC 24]. The Full Bench discussed when an extension might be granted, but this should not be seen as a legal declaration. The Bench noted that it was merely a reference to possible circumstances for seeking an extension. Additionally, the Full Bench upheld the decision in Dr. Kesavankutty Nair’s case, stating that the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit cannot be applied in this situation. The Bench pointed out that the applicants did not demonstrate any harm caused by the interim order from the previous case. It also highlighted that there was no prohibition on reporting vacancies to the PSC, which confirmed it received the necessary forms to report vacancies. The only restriction was on issuing advice memos for the reported vacancies. Therefore, the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit could not be used here, as it means that the actions of the court should not harm anyone.

The Bench further stated, “Moreover, the PSC is a constitutional body. According to the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, only the PSC has the legal authority to decide on extending the period, based on the circumstances mentioned in the 5th proviso.” The High Court clarified that the Tribunal should not have instructed the PSC to extend the life of the ranked list for the duration of the interim order, as the applicants did not prove that there was a ban on reporting vacancies to the PSC. Consequently, the Bench annulled the Tribunal’s order.

Cause Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. Vilayathulla P.H. & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:85936]
Appearance:
Petitioner:Advocate P.C.Sasidhara
Respondents: Advocates P.Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev, Vivek Vijayakumar, Riya Tomy, Senior Government Pleader A.J.Varghese