2009 (3) TMI 981 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a correct construction has been placed on Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (in short the Rules ) by the Kerala Public Service Commission (in short the P.S.C.), while selecting candidates for the post of Medical Officer (ISM)?

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.
2. Whether the Kerala Public Service Commission (P.S.C.) correctly applied the communal rotation and reservation principles while advising candidates for the post of Medical Officer (ISM).
3. The validity of the High Court's directions to reopen and re-arrange the advice lists based on its interpretation of the Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958:
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant rules, particularly Rule 14(a), which specifies that the unit of appointment for the purpose of reservation shall be 20. Rule 14(b) states that if a Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), or Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate is selected on open merit, it will not affect the reserved seats. The Court emphasized that a harmonious interpretation should be given to Rules 14(a) and 14(b), and neither should prevail over the other. The Court clarified that Rule 14(a) does not mention percentages but specifies a unit of 20, and appointments should be made in batches of 20, applying the rotation as per Rule 14(c). The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation that the unit of appointment should be the number of vacancies reported if it exceeds 20, stating that the High Court effectively rewrote Rule 14(a), which is not permissible.

2. Whether the Kerala Public Service Commission (P.S.C.) correctly applied the communal rotation and reservation principles:
The P.S.C. argued that it followed the rules correctly by advising candidates in batches of 20. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the P.S.C. has been following this practice for over 30 years, and it should not be disturbed unless there are compelling reasons. The Court noted that the P.S.C. advised candidates based on the order of requisitions received and applied the principles of reservation and rotation correctly. The Court emphasized that Rule 14(b) should be applied within each batch of 20 candidates, and not for the total number of vacancies.

3. The validity of the High Court's directions to reopen and re-arrange the advice lists:
The High Court had directed the P.S.C. to reopen and re-arrange the advice lists based on its interpretation that the unit of appointment should be the number of vacancies reported if it exceeds 20. The Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect, stating that the High Court's directions effectively amended Rule 14(a) and (c), which is beyond its jurisdiction. The Court held that the correct interpretation is to adopt each batch of 20 candidates as a separate unit for the purpose of reservation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court upheld the P.S.C.'s method of advising candidates in batches of 20, applying the principles of reservation and rotation as per the rules. The Court emphasized that the literal rule of interpretation should be applied when the statute is clear, and the High Court's purposive interpretation was misconceived. The Court also noted that reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different states can have different methods of reservation as long as they do not violate constitutional provisions or statutes.

← Previous Next →