Priya B.M. vs Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors.
- SCC(2017) 13 SCC 505
- Neutral2017 INSC 350
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a candidate belongs to the same rank list and holds a substantially similar position to a candidate who has already received relief from this Court in an earlier case on the same subject matter, the relief granted in that earlier case must be extended to the similarly situated candidate, notwithstanding that the earlier relief was technically limited to the parties to those cases.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
PRIYA B.M. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 14.01.2016 whereby the High Court declined to grant any relief to the appellant on the basis of the order dated 08.01.2015 of this Court passed in Swapna Sukumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and other connected matters holding that the relief was limited only to the parties to those cases. But, unfortunately both, the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court missed to take note of the fact that the appellant herein belongs to the same rank list dated 14.6.2011 and the appellant was at rank No.23. In the case of another similarly situated candidate, this Court on 5.10.2015 in Abokare K. v. State of Kerala and Others (C.A. No.8258/2015) has granted the relief. We are informed that Abokare K. is rank No.25 in the rank list.
3. In view of the above, we set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Administrative Tribunal. The name of the appellant in the rank list of 4.6.2011 shall stand restored and the respondents are directed to operate the said rank list in the case of the appellant. Appointment order shall be issued to her expeditiously and in any case within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
4. Needless to say that this Court is conscious of the fact that the rank list has expired. However, the direction, as above, is issued in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, following the earlier judgment.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
7. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 13, 2017.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free