AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

               [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1148 : 2024 INSC 1037

                       Ajith G. Das & Others Etc.
                                   v.
                       The State of Kerala & Ors.
                    (Civil Appeal No(s). 14828 of 2024)
                             19 December 2024
              [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the refusal of Kerala Public Service
       Commission to expand vacancies despite the directions of the
       tribunal.

                                 Headnotes†
       Service law – Recruitment – Expansion of rank lists – Kerala
       Public Service Commission-KPSC invited applications for the
       post of Junior Health Inspector for 14 districts of Kerala – Rank
       List published for the notified districts – Appellants sought
       directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the
       post on account of overlapping candidates in multiple lists,
       and several vacancies remained unfilled – Tribunal directed the
       State Government to decide on the expansion of the rank lists –
       State Government in compliance with the directions expanded
       the rank lists and sent recommendation to KPSC for necessary
       action – KPSC rejected the Government's recommendation –
       Said rejection challenged by the appellants – Tribunal
       dismissed the same – High Court upheld the order passed
       by tribunal – Correctness:
       Held: Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the
       selection process – KPSC functions as an autonomous body
       within the framework laid down by the Constitution – However,
       its autonomy confined to the conduct of the selection process –
       Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition
       for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government,
       which is the employer – Government is best positioned to assess
       its workforce requirements – KPSC’s mandate is to conduct the
       selection process in a manner that aligns with the Government's
       requisition – Notification issued clearly indicated that vacancies
       to be filled included those that might arise in future considering
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                            1149

       Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others


     the extended duration of the selection process and the potential
     for additional vacancies to emerge over time – Neither logical
     nor equitable for the KPSC to disregard the Government's
     directives – KPSC’s refusal amounts to an overreach of its role –
     It was unreasonable for KPSC to deny the Government's request
     to expand the rank list when the process remains within the
     bounds of the original notification – Government’s request does
     not interfere with the selection process itself but pertains to the
     utilization of the rank list to address emergent needs – KPSC’s
     actions not only contrary to the Government's directives but also
     detrimental to the broader public interest – High Court's judgment
     failed to account for the unique circumstances of this case and
     overlooked the binding nature of the tribunal's order – High Court
     did not adequately address the implications of the Government's
     role in notifying vacancies and directing the expansion of the rank
     list – Government’s directives regarding workforce requirements
     are binding on the KPSC, provided they do not interfere with the
     integrity and sanctity of the selection process – Appellants are
     successful and meritorious candidates who duly placed in the rank
     list and not individuals who failed to meet the required standards
     or are seeking selection through an unwarranted expansion of the
     rank list – Penalizing appellants for factors beyond their control
     not only violate the principles of fairness but also undermine the
     very objective of transparent and merit-based public recruitment –
     Relief granted not to be confined to appellants alone but extend to
     all candidates who have rightfully and meritoriously appeared in
     the rank list, having qualified the selection process – Rights of all
     eligible candidates upheld while aligning with the broader principles
     of equity, transparency, and merit-based public employment – Order
     passed by the High Court set aside – KPSC directed to expand
     the rank list to include the additional vacancies identified by the
     State Government – Constitution of India – Art. 320. [Paras 17-33]

                              Case Law Cited
     State of Punjab v. Manjhit Singh & Ors [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 856 :
     (2003)11 SCC 559; Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana
     [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of
     Procedure.
1150                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                                 List of Keywords
      Service Law; Expansion of vacancies; Refusal to expand vacancies;
      Post of Junior Health Inspector; Overlapping candidates in multiple
      lists; Selection process; Kerala Public Service Commission, an
      autonomous body; Prerogative of the State Government; Integrity
      and sanctity of selection process; Overreach of role by Public
      Service Commission; Role of Government to notify vacancies; Role
      of Public Service Commission limited to selection; Merit-based and
      fair public employment; Erroneous interpretation of Public Service
      Commission's authority; Division of responsibilities between State
      Government and Public Service Commission.

                                 Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 14828-
      14829 of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2024 of the High Court
      of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPKAT Nos. 298 and 311 of 2023

                              Appearances for Parties
      Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, Anand B. Menon,
      Radha Shyam Jena, Advs. for the Appellants.

                        Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

      Vikram Nath, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    The present appeals arise from a judgment of the Division Bench
      of the High Court of Kerala dated 14.02.2024 in OP(KAT) No.298
      of 2023 and in OP(KAT) No.311 of 2023, upholding the decision
      of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal1 in O.A. Nos. 893/2023 and
      878/2023. The matter pertains to the recruitment process conducted
      by the Kerala Public Service Commission2 for the post of Junior



1    In short, “KAT”
2    In short, “KPSC”
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        1151

       Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others



     Health Inspector Grade-II in the Municipal Common Service across
     various districts of Kerala. The dispute arose due to KPSC’s refusal
     to expand the rank lists for the said post, despite several vacancies
     remaining unfilled owing to peculiar circumstances surrounding the
     selection process.
3.   The recruitment process commenced with KPSC issuing two separate
     gazette notifications. The first notification, dated 26.12.2014, was
     published under Category No. 571/2014, inviting applications for the
     post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Municipal Common
     Service for nine districts of Kerala. Subsequently, on 29.05.2015,
     KPSC issued another notification under Category No. 137/2015,
     inviting applications for the same post in five additional districts. Both
     notifications outlined the eligibility criteria and detailed the selection
     process, which included a common written test and an interview.
     Following the completion of these processes, KPSC published the
     rank lists for the notified districts. The rank list under Category No.
     137/2015 was issued on 12.02.2020 (Rank List No. 80/2020/SSV II)
     for some districts and on 19.02.2020 (Rank List No. 96/2020/SSV II)
     for the remaining districts. The appellants herein were included in
     these rank lists.
4.   The appellants, along with similarly situated candidates, approached
     the KAT by filing O.A. No. 803/2019 and O.A. No. 178/2019, seeking
     directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the post
     of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Malappuram district
     (Category No. 137/2015). The appellants contended that the number
     of candidates included in the main list was limited to 81, owing to
     the unscientific criteria adopted by KPSC in the selection process.
     They argued that the preparation of separate rank lists for different
     districts under distinct notifications led to overlapping candidates
     being included in multiple lists. This resulted in the premature
     exhaustion of the rank lists due to non-joining of duty, relinquishment
     of claims, or candidates opting for postings in other preferred districts.
     Consequently, several vacancies remained unfilled.
5.   The KAT, considering the extraordinary circumstances arising from
     the selection process and the subsequent exhaustion of the rank
     lists, disposed of the original applications through a common final
     order dated 28.11.2022. The Tribunal directed the State Government
     to decide on the expansion of the rank lists, taking into account the
1152                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports



      observations made in its order. The State was instructed to place its
      decision before KPSC within three months, along with appropriate
      recommendations. KPSC was directed to take further action within
      two months thereafter. Furthermore, the concerned respondents
      were directed to provisionally report 50 vacancies from each district
      to KPSC within two weeks of the order. The interim order restraining
      KPSC from advising the last candidate under the open competition
      quota in the ranked list was also extended until compliance with the
      Tribunal’s directives.
6.    In compliance with the Tribunal’s directions, the appellants and
      other affected candidates were heard by the Secretary, Personnel
      and Administration Reforms Department of the Government on
      25.01.2023. After considering the matter, the Government decided
      to recommend the expansion of the rank lists to fill the pending
      vacancies. Accordingly, a recommendation dated 15.03.2023 was
      submitted to KPSC for necessary action. However, KPSC, by its
      letter dated 04.04.2023, rejected the Government’s recommendation,
      stating that the rank lists had already included sufficient number
      of candidates based on the reported vacancies at the time of their
      preparation. KPSC relied on Rule 3 and Rule 4(iv) of the KPSC
      Rules of Procedure, which empower the KPSC to determine the
      number of candidates to be included in rank lists based on factors
      such as the number of vacancies reported and the nature of the post.
      KPSC also emphasized that the validity period of the rank lists had
      already expired and that further expansion would create a negative
      precedent, leading to similar demands in the future.
7.    Aggrieved by KPSC’s decision, the appellants filed O.A. Nos.
      878/2023 and 893/2023 before the KAT, challenging the letter dated
      04.04.2023. The Tribunal, however, dismissed these applications
      through its judgment dated 09.06.2023. Relying on the judgments
      passed by this Court in State of Punjab v. Manjhit Singh & Ors.3
      and Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana4 among others,
      the Tribunal held that interference with KPSC’s decisions regarding
      the preparation of rank lists was unwarranted. It was further observed
      that KPSC, as an autonomous selection body, possesses exclusive


3    [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 856 : (2003)11 SCC 559
4    [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       1153

       Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others


     authority to decide on matters related to the inclusion of candidates
     in rank lists. The Tribunal acknowledged the unique circumstances
     of the case, including the issuance of two notifications for the same
     post in different districts, which led to overlapping candidates and the
     premature exhaustion of rank lists. Nevertheless, it concluded that
     such issues did not justify judicial intervention in the administrative
     functions of KPSC.
8.   The appellants subsequently approached the High Court, challenging
     the Tribunal’s order. The Division Bench of the High Court, through
     its common judgment, dismissed the petitions, affirming the Tribunal’s
     decision. The High Court held that while the Government serves as
     the employer and KPSC functions as a selection agency, neither
     the Government nor the Tribunal nor the Court has the authority to
     direct KPSC to modify or expand the rank lists to address unfilled
     vacancies. It was reiterated that KPSC retains full autonomy in such
     matters. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have filed the
     present appeals before this Court.
9.   The High Court, in its impugned order, emphasized the autonomy
     and constitutional independence of the KPSC in the recruitment
     process, asserting that any interference by external authorities
     would undermine its intended purpose. The High Court extensively
     deliberated on the autonomy and constitutional responsibilities of the
     KPSC while addressing the question of whether KPSC is obligated to
     act upon recommendations made by the State Government regarding
     expansion of the rank list.
10. The High Court underscored that KPSC, as a constitutionally mandated
    autonomous body under Article 320 of the Constitution of India, is
    independent in its functioning and decision-making. The High Court
    highlighted that KPSC’s independence is enshrined in the Constitution
    to ensure fair and transparent recruitment, free from influence or
    arbitrariness. It highlighted that the Government cannot interfere
    with KPSC’s authority to prepare rank list as that would undermine
    KPSC’s independence and autonomy, which are vital to ensuring
    transparent and fair recruitment. While the Government, as the
    appointing authority, has the right to make recommendations to KPSC
    regarding the number of candidates required, such recommendations
    are not binding on KPSC. The High Court emphasized that KPSC
    has the discretion to either accept or reject these recommendations
1154                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     based on its established procedures and the constitutional mandate
     to uphold fairness in public employment.
11. The High Court clarified that neither the KAT nor the Courts have the
    authority to direct KPSC to expand the rank list or alter its decisions
    regarding the selection process. It held that such interference would
    compromise KPSC’s independence, which the Constitution explicitly
    protects.
12. The High Court outlined the framework of the recruitment process,
    which involves distinct stages: the Government’s responsibility to
    accurately report vacancies, KPSC’s role in preparing rank and select
    lists, and the final appointments by the Government. It stressed that
    the Government must report vacancies in a timely and efficient manner
    before KPSC initiates its selection process. Referring to its earlier
    judgment in O.P. (KAT) No. 441/2020, the High Court reiterated that
    guidelines were already laid down regarding how vacancies must
    be reported and how the shortlist should be prepared. It concluded
    that once KPSC adheres to these directions during the preparation
    of the rank list, no authority, including the Government, Tribunal, or
    Courts, can interfere or direct expansion of the list.
13. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions challenging
    KPSC’s refusal to expand the rank list, affirming that its decision was
    consistent with constitutional principles and within its jurisdiction. It
    upheld KPSC’s decision as within its autonomous jurisdiction and
    in alignment with constitutional principles and KPSC’s independent
    authority, as a constitutionally protected body tasked with ensuring
    merit-based and fair public employment.
14. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the appellants. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the
    respondents, despite service of notice.
15. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the appellants has made the
    following submissions:
     15.1 The High Court overlooked the constitutional mandate and
          regulatory framework under Article 320(3), which excludes
          determination of the number of vacancies from the purview
          of the KPSC. The appellants pointed out that the notification
          issued in 2014 led to the creation of a rank list in 2020, valid
          until February 2023, during which time eligible candidates
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      1155

       Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others


           were reported. This notification expressly included all potential
           vacancies that might arise in future, considering the protracted
           selection process, which took six years, and the fact that no
           subsequent recruitment process had commenced.
     15.2 The Government’s authority to notify the number of vacancies
          is not constrained to the period before publication of the rank
          list, as implied by the High Court. They asserted that such a
          restriction is not supported by the constitutional provisions or
          their plain reading. Furthermore, they highlighted that the KAT
          had, in its order dated 28.11.2022, where both the Government
          and KPSC were respondents, recognized an extraordinary
          situation wherein numerous vacancies remained unfilled due
          to duplication of candidates’ names across different rank lists.
          This order became final and was binding on the KPSC. The
          appellants criticized KPSC’s rejection of the Government’s
          recommendations, arguing that it effectively acted as an
          appellate authority without justification.
     15.3 The High Court in the impugned order failed to address the
          extraordinary situation of unfilled vacancies or the binding
          nature of the KAT’s order, possibly due to the absence of active
          participation by the Government or KPSC in the proceedings.
          They further pointed out the limited scope of the present appeal,
          involving only 27 candidates who seek to fill vacancies without
          displacing others. Given the delay in initiating a new selection
          process, they urged this Court to consider the appeal on
          equitable grounds and allow these candidates to be appointed
          to the existing vacancies.
16. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants
    and having perused the material on record, we find merit in the
    appellants’ arguments and believe that it is imperative to look into
    the limits of the KPSC’s autonomy and its power vis-à-vis the State
    Government with regard to the selection process and employment
    in Government services.
17. The primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection
    process. It functions as an autonomous body within the framework
    laid down by the Constitution of India, ensuring transparency and
    merit-based recruitment. However, its autonomy is confined to the
    conduct of the selection process. Determination of the number of
1156                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative
     of the State Government, which is the employer. This fundamental
     distinction was overlooked by the High Court, leading to an erroneous
     interpretation of the KPSC’s authority.
18. The Government’s role in notifying vacancies is integral to the
    recruitment process. It determines workforce requirements based
    on administrative exigencies and operational needs. The KPSC’s
    mandate is to conduct the selection process in a manner that aligns
    with these requisitions. The present case underscores the need for
    clarity in division of responsibilities between the State Government
    and the Public Service Commission.
19. The notification issued in 2014 clearly indicated that the vacancies
    to be filled included those that might arise in future. This stipulation
    was made considering the extended duration of the selection process
    and the potential for additional vacancies to emerge over time. By the
    time the rank list was published in 2020, the administrative landscape
    had evolved, necessitating filling of more vacancies.
20. The Government, as the employer, is best positioned to assess its
    workforce requirements. It is neither logical nor equitable for the KPSC
    to disregard the Government’s directives in this regard. When the
    Government identifies the need for additional employees and directs
    the KPSC to expand the rank list to accommodate these vacancies,
    the KPSC’s refusal amounts to an overreach of its role. This refusal is
    particularly egregious given the extraordinary circumstances, such as
    duplication of names in different select lists, which have contributed
    to the unfilled vacancies.
21. The selection process under the 2014 notification spanned
    approximately six years, culminating in a rank list published in 2020.
    The validity of this rank list extended until February 2023. During this
    period, the Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies
    arose. It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s
    request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly
    when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification.
22. The argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy
    of the KPSC is misplaced. The Government’s request does not
    interfere with the selection process itself but pertains to the utilization
    of the rank list to address emergent needs. The KPSC’s refusal to
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        1157

       Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others


     comply with this request reflects a narrow and restrictive interpretation
     of its role, which is not supported by the factual realities of this case.
23. The Government’s ability to function effectively hinges on its capacity
    to deploy adequate human resources. The unfilled vacancies have
    a cascading effect on governance and public service. The KPSC’s
    refusal to expand the rank list exacerbates these challenges, creating
    unnecessary bottlenecks in the recruitment process. The KPSC’s
    actions, in this case, are not only contrary to the Government’s
    directives but also detrimental to the broader public interest.
24. The appellants before this Court have waited for nearly a decade
    for the completion of the selection process. They stand to suffer
    irreparable harm if the rank list is not expanded to include them.
    The Government’s directive to select additional candidates under
    the same notification does not prejudice other aspirants, particularly
    since the next selection process has not yet commenced. On the
    contrary, it serves to mitigate the inequities caused by the prolonged
    recruitment process.
25. The principle of equity demands that the appellants’ grievances
    be addressed in a manner that balances individual rights with
    administrative exigencies. Denying them the opportunity to be
    considered for the additional vacancies under the 2014 notification
    would amount to a grave injustice.
26. The High Court’s judgment failed to account for the unique
    circumstances of this case, including the duplication of names in
    multiple select lists and the resulting unfilled vacancies. It also
    overlooked the binding nature of the Tribunal’s order dated 28.11.2022,
    which expressly recognized the extraordinary situation and directed
    appropriate remedial action. This oversight has further compounded
    the hardships faced by the appellants.
27. Moreover, the High Court did not adequately address the implications
    of the Government’s role in notifying vacancies and directing the
    expansion of the rank list. By failing to engage with these critical
    issues, the High Court’s judgment does not reflect a comprehensive
    understanding of the factual and administrative complexities involved.
28. The Government’s directives regarding workforce requirements are
    binding on the KPSC, provided they do not interfere with the integrity
    and sanctity of the selection process. While the KPSC’s autonomy
1158                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     remains vital, it must be exercised within the confines of its role as a
     facilitator of recruitment and not as an arbiter of administrative policy.
29. We would further like to emphasise that the appellants in this case
    are successful and meritorious candidates who have duly qualified
    the selection process and secured their rightful place in the rank list.
    They are not individuals who failed to meet the required standards or
    are seeking selection through an unwarranted expansion of the rank
    list. Instead, these candidates have endured a prolonged wait due
    to administrative lapses, including the overlapping of names across
    multiple rank lists and the inadequate notification of vacancies. Such
    anomalies in the recruitment process have unfairly deprived deserving
    candidates of their rightful opportunities. Such administrative
    anomalies should not prejudice deserving candidates. Denying them
    the opportunity to be considered for unfilled vacancies disregards
    their merit and undermines the integrity of the selection process. It
    is imperative to ensure that such candidates are not penalized for
    circumstances beyond their control, as doing so would contradict
    the principles of fairness and equity inherent in public employment.
30. It is crucial to recognize that these appellants have already proven
    their merit and eligibility, and their inclusion in the rank list is a
    testament to their capability and diligence. The mere fact that certain
    vacancies remained unfilled due to procedural and administrative
    inefficiencies should not result in these candidates being excluded
    from consideration. Moreso, as their employer-the State of Kerala had
    requested the KPSC to expand the rank list and recommend further
    names for appointment against existing vacancies. Penalizing them
    for factors beyond their control would not only violate the principles
    of fairness but also undermine the very objective of transparent
    and merit-based public recruitment. Ensuring that these qualified
    candidates are given their due opportunity is both an equitable
    and constitutionally sound approach to address the extraordinary
    circumstances of this case.
31. The impleadment application bearing I.A. No.209123 of 2024, filed
    by eighteen other candidates appearing in the rank lists, is hereby
    allowed.
32. It is submitted by the appellants that the relief prayed for is limited
    to the twenty seven candidates before us, nine in the appeals
    admitted and eighteen through the impleadment application. The
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       1159

          Ajith G. Das & Others Etc. v. The State of Kerala & Others


     relief granted in this case shall not be confined to these appellants
     alone but shall extend to all candidates who have rightfully and
     meritoriously appeared in the rank list, having qualified the selection
     process. This ensures that the benefit of the decision applies
     uniformly to all eligible candidates who were included in the rank
     list and are awaiting appointment. Extending the benefit under this
     decision to all candidates in the merit list is only fair and equitable
     since it is possible that other similarly placed candidates may not
     have approached this Court owing to financial or other constraints,
     which shall not be an impediment to their career prospects and
     a fair, merit-based selection process for public employment. The
     principle of fairness dictates that all such qualified candidates should
     be considered for selection through the impugned process, whether
     they are before us or not, although such selection shall be strictly
     in accordance with their merit and the requirements notified by the
     State Government. By directing the KPSC to expand the rank list
     and fill the additional vacancies, this Court seeks to uphold the rights
     of all eligible candidates while aligning with the broader principles of
     equity, transparency, and merit-based public employment.
33. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of
    the High Court is set aside, and the KPSC is directed to expand
    the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional
    vacancies identified by the State Government. The KPSC shall take
    all necessary steps to facilitate the selection process of the qualified
    candidates, as per their merit, in accordance with the requirement
    notified by the State Government, from the same selection process
    without any further delay.
34. Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the Case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain