Smitha T. M. & Ors. vs The Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

O.P.(KAT)No.98 of 2026 arises out of the order dated 26.02.2026 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026 and O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026 arises out of the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026.

The petitioners in O.P.(KAT)No.98 of 2026 are the applicants in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order directing the 4^th respondent Joint Director, Local Self Government Department, Malappuram, to report all existing Non-Joining Duty (NJD) vacancies and all future vacancies of Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department in Malappuram District, arising during the currency of Annexure A1 ranked list (Category No.137/2015) published by the 1^st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, forthwith; an order directing the 2^nd respondent District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Malappuram, to advise the applicants against the said reported NJD vacancies and future vacancies arising during the currency of the ranked list, strictly in accordance with merit, rotation and reservation; and an order directing the appointing authority to appoint the applicants so advised, without any delay.

The petitioners in O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026 are the applicants in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order directing the 4^th respondent Joint Director, Local Self Government Department, Thrissur, to report all existing Non-Joining Duty (NJD) vacancies and all future vacancies of Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District, arising during the currency of Annexure A1 ranked list (Category No.137/2015) published by the 1^st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, forthwith; an order directing the 2^nd respondent District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Thrissur, to advise the applicants against the said reported NJD vacancies and future vacancies arising during the currency of the ranked list, strictly in accordance with merit, rotation and reservation; and an order directing the appointing authority to appoint the applicants so advised, without any delay.

The document marked as Annexure A2 in both the original applications is a copy of the judgment dated 19.12.2024 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.14828-29 of 2024, arising from SLP(C)Nos.10155-56 of 2024, whereby the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 14.02.2024 in O.P.(KAT)Nos.298 and 311 of 2023, arising out of the order dated 09.06.2023 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.Nos.893 of 2023 and 878 of 2023 were set aside. By Annexure A2 judgment, the Kerala Public Service Commission was directed to expand the ranked list under the 2014 notification (Annexure A1) to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government. By that judgment, the Commission was directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the selection process of the qualified candidates, as per their merit, in accordance with the recruitment notified by the State Government, from the same selection process, without any further delay.

The document marked Annexure A3 in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026 is a copy of an addendum/erratum notification dated 13.08.2025 issued by the Public Service Commission, pursuant to Annexure A5 judgment of the Apex Court and the subsequent decision taken by the Commission, for the post of Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Malappuram District, and Annexure A3 in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 is a copy of an addendum notification dated 19.08.2025 issued by the Public Service Commission, for the post of Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District.

The document marked as Annexure A4 in O.A.(EKM)No. 277 of 2026 is a copy of the order dated 31.10.2025 of the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C)Nos.242-43 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos.14828-29 of 2024, wherein the Apex Court recorded the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Public Service Commission that the directions issued by the Apex Court have been duly complied with, about 3 days ago and consequently, the advisories that were required to be issued pursuant to such compliance have not yet been received by the petitioners-applicants. By the said order, the Apex Court granted 2 weeks’ time to place on record, by way of an additional affidavit, all material particulars to demonstrate full and effective compliance with the directions issued by the Court. The above order dated 31.10.2025 of the Apex Court is marked as Annexure A6 in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026.

The document marked as Annexure A5 in O.A.(EKM)No. 277 of 2026 is a copy of the order dated 16.12.2025 of the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C)Nos.242-43 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos.14828-29 of 2024, whereby the Apex Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Public Service Commission that the Commission has already forwarded a list of 115 candidates to the State Government, which includes 9 of the petitioners-applicants. When the State Government makes any further requisition, the Commission shall forward the requisite details accordingly. The learned counsel for the State of Kerala sought 4 weeks’ time to obtain instructions in the matter and place on record the figures indicating the number of additional vacancies required to be filled. While ordering the matters to be listed on 20.01.2026, the Apex Court ordered that, in the meantime, if the State makes any request to the Commission, the Commission shall forward the names of the candidates. The above order dated 16.12.2025 of the Apex Court is marked as Annexure A7 in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026.

The document marked as Annexure A4 in O.A.(EKM)No. 256 of 2026 is a copy of a communication dated 09.01.2026 issued by the 4^th respondent Joint Director, Local Self Government Department, Thrissur, whereby the 2^nd respondent District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Thrissur, was informed that, out of the 43 candidates advised for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District, only 7 candidates joined, the NJD vacancy position in respect of the remaining 36 candidates have been reported to the Commission, through e-vacancy proforma. The document marked as Annexure A5 in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 is a copy of a communication dated 19.01.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Thrissur addressed to the 4^th respondent Joint Director, Local Self Government Department, Thrissur, furnishing the list of the candidates advised for appointment to the post of Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District.

The common grievance of the applicants in O.A.(EKM) Nos.256 of 2026 and 277 of 2026 before the Tribunal was that, notwithstanding the availability of NJD vacancies and the operation of the ranked lists, they were not advised for appointment to the post of Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Malappuram District/Thrissur District. The failure on the part of the respondents in considering the applicants for appointment, despite the availability of vacancies, is highly arbitrary and illegal.

When O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 came up for admission, the Tribunal dismissed the same by the order dated 23.02.2026. A copy of the said order, which is marked as Ext.P2 in O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026, reads thus;

When O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026 came up for admission, the Tribunal dismissed the same by the order dated 26.02.2026. A copy of the said order, which is marked as Ext.P2 in O.P.(KAT)No.98 of 2026, reads thus;

O.P.(KAT)No.98 of 2026 filed by the petitioners-applicants, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the order dated 26.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026, and O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026 arises out of the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026.

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants in the respective original petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4.

The issue that requires consideration in these original petitions is as to whether any interference is warranted in Ext.P2 orders of the Tribunal, i.e., Ext.P2 order dated 26.02.2026 in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026, which is under challenge in O.P.(KAT) No.98 of 2026, and Ext.P2 order dated 23.02.2026 in O.A.(EKM) No.256 of 2026, which is under challenge in O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a China shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.

In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants in the respective original petitions would contend that Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026, which is under challenge in O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026, and Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026, which is under challenge in O.P.(KAT)No.98 of 2026, are opposed to law and facts of the cases. Therefore, those orders are liable to be interfered with in these original petitions. Once Annexure A1 ranked lists were expanded, the candidates included in Annexure A3 addendum notification dated 19.08.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 and Annexure A3 addendum cum erratum notification dated 13.08.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026 are entitled to advice and appointment against the NJD vacancies reported to the Public Service Commission, even after the expiry of Annexure A1 ranked lists in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 and O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P2 orders, for declining the reliefs sought for in the respective original applications, is perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4, would submit that the Tribunal has stated valid reasons in Ext.P2 orders for declining the reliefs sought for in the original applications. The reasoning of the Tribunal, which is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warrants no interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners in O.P.(KAT)No.98 of 2026, who are the applicants in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026, are candidates aspiring for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Malappuram District, and the petitioners in O.P.(KAT)No.99 of 2026, who are the applicants in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026, are candidates aspiring for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District. The document marked as Annexure A1 in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026 is the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Malappuram District, which came into force with effect from 19.02.2020. Admittedly, Annexure A1 ranked list for Malappuram District expired on 18.02.2023. Similarly, the document marked as Annexure A1 in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026 is the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District, which came into force with effect from 12.02.2020. Admittedly, Annexure A1 ranked list for Thrissur District expired on 11.02.2023.

The legality of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.893 of 2023 and connected matters to expand the ranked lists prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in various districts, and the questions as to the authority of the State Government to recommend the Public Service Commission to expand the ranked lists, were the issues for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.298 of 2023 and connected matters.

In Ajith G. Das v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 73], the Division Bench of this Court held that, no doubt, the Government, being the appointing authority, is competent to make recommendations to the Public Service Commission. But the Public Service Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the Government. The Public Service Commission can either accept the recommendation or reject it. The autonomous character of the Public Service Commission will have to be maintained throughout the selection process, and any tinkering with the authority in preparation of the list would amount to interference with the independence of the Commission, which the Constitution of India never contemplated. The Public Service Commission has every authority to reject the recommendation of the Government, and the Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the Government. It is not for the Administrative Tribunal or the Court to give direction to the Public Service Commission based on exigencies that demand. Any such exercise will amount to compromising the independence of the Public Service Commission. The Division Bench noticed that a selection process consists of various steps - inviting applications through a notification, preparation of a ranked list and select list, and finally the appointment. The Public Service Commission will have to scientifically determine the number of vacancies for preparing the select list by devising criteria for the short list. The mere existence of a vacancy cannot result in demanding expansion of the select list, as there may be candidates who might have become eligible after the last date of notification. Those aspirations of the candidates also cannot be ignored in that process. Since, ordinarily, time gap between the date on which the Public Service Commission decides on the size of the shortlist and the date of the finalisation of the ranked list would be at least 6 to 10 months, and since the minimum assured life span of the ranked list, as per the operative portion of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, is one year, it will be only in the fitness of things that the appointing authorities/departmental authorities apprise the Public Service Commission about not only the actually existing vacancies to be reported but also the vacancies that are reasonably likely to arise within a period of one and a half years or so from the date/month on which the Commission proposes to decide the size of the shortlist. Accordingly, the Division Bench issued various directions in paragraph 71 of the decision.

In Ajith G. Das v. State of Kerala [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6753], the Apex Court set aside the decision of the Division Bench in Ajith G. Das [2024 (5) KHC 73]. The Apex Court held that the primary role of the Kerala Public Service Commission 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. The determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remains the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer. The role of the Government in notifying vacancies is integral to the recruitment process, which determines workforce requirements based on administrative exigencies and operational needs. The mandate of the Public Service Commission is to conduct the selection process in a manner that aligns with these requisitions.

In Ajith G. Das [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820], the Apex Court noticed that 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 ranked list was published in 2020, the administrative landscape had evolved, necessitating the filling of more vacancies. The Government, as the employer, is best positioned to assess its workforce requirements. It is neither logical nor equitable for the Public Service Commission to disregard the directives of the Government in this regard. When the Government identifies the need for additional employees and directs the Public Service Commission to expand the ranked list to accommodate these vacancies, the refusal of the Commission 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. The selection process under the 2014 notification spanned approximately six years, culminating in a ranked list published in 2020, and the validity of the ranked list extended until February 2023. During this period, the needs of the Government evolved, and additional vacancies arose. It is unreasonable for the Public Service Commission to deny the request of the Government to expand the ranked list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification.

In Ajith G. Das [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820], the Apex Court found that the argument that an expansion of the ranked list would undermine the autonomy of the Kerala Public Service Commission is misplaced. The request of the Government does not interfere with the selection process itself, but pertains to the utilisation of the ranked list to address the emergent needs. The refusal of the Public Service Commission to comply with this request reflects a narrow and restrictive interpretation of its role, which is not supported by the factual realities of the case at hand. The appellants have waited for nearly a decade for the completion of the selection process. They stand to suffer irreparable harm if the ranked list is not expanded to include them. The directives of the Government to select additional candidates under the same notification do 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. 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.

In Ajith G. Das [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820], the Apex Court found that it is crucial to recognise that the appellants have already proven their merit and eligibility, and their inclusion in the ranked 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 Kerala Public Service Commission to expand the ranked list and recommend further names for appointment against existing vacancies, penalising the candidates 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.

In Ajith G. Das [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820], the Apex Court held that the relief granted in this case shall not be confined to the appellants alone but shall extend to all candidates who have rightfully and meritoriously appeared in the ranked 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 ranked 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 the Court owing to financial or other constraints, which shall not impede 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 the Court or not, although such selection shall be strictly in accordance with their merit and the requirements notified by the State Government. The Apex Court made it clear that, by directing the Kerala Public Service Commission to expand the ranked list and fill the additional vacancies, the Court seeks to uphold the rights of all eligible candidates while aligning with the broader principles of equity, transparency, and merit-based public employment. The Civil Appeals were accordingly allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court in Ajith G. Das [2024 (5) KHC 73], and the Public Service Commission was directed to expand the ranked list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government. The Public Service Commission was directed to 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.

In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, Annexure A1 ranked list in O.A.(EKM)No.277 of 2026, published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Malappuram District, which came into force with effect from 19.02.2020, expired on 18.02.2023. Similarly, Annexure A1 ranked list in O.A.(EKM)No.256 of 2026, published by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District, which came into force with effect from 12.02.2020, expired on 11.02.2023.

As per Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier. As per the third proviso to Rule 13, the Commission may take steps for the preparation of a new ranked list wherever necessary even before the expiry of the period of one year of the ranked list, by inviting applications but that the ranked list prepared in pursuance of the said notification shall be brought into force only after the expiry of the period of one year of the existing ranked list. As per Rule 14, the Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive, in the order of priority, if any, and in the order of merit, subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable.

In Director of Indian System of Medicine v. Dr. Susmi C.T. [(2021) 20 SCC 1], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, after referring to the provisions under Rules 13 and 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, observed that, the candidates can expect that their claim would be considered against the vacancies which occur during the currency of a ranked list, upon their being advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. This obligation is because of the terms in Rule 14 that the Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them, and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive. If one keeps in mind that the obligation of the Commission arises after the vacancies are reported, it is apparent that, as a prerequisite for that obligation, the vacancies should occur and should be reported.

In Ajith G. Das [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820], while allowing the Civil Appeals arising out of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ajith G. Das [2024 (5) KHC 73], the Apex Court directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to expand the ranked list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that 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. The selection process under the 2014 notification spanned approximately six years, culminating in a ranked list published in 2020, and the validity of the ranked list extended until February 2023. During this period, the needs of the Government evolved, and additional vacancies arose. The extraordinary circumstances, such as duplication of names in different select lists, have contributed to the unfilled vacancies. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the Public Service Commission to deny the request of the Government to expand the ranked list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification.

When the direction contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Ajith G. Das [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3820] was to expand the ranked lists under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government during the validity of the ranked lists, including Annexure A1 ranked lists in O.A.(EKM)Nos.256 of 2026 and 277 of 2026, which were in force until 11.02.2023 and 18.02.2023, respectively, and not to extend the validity of the said ranked lists beyond 11.02.2023 and 18.02.2023 respectively, the petitioners-applicants, who are the candidates included in Annexure A3 ranked lists in O.A.(EKM)Nos. 256 of 2026 and 277 of 2026, published by the Kerala Public Service Commission vide addendum/erratum notifications dated 19.08.2025 and 13.08.2025 respectively, have no legal right to get advice and appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Grade II) in the Municipal Common Service Department, in Thrissur District/ Malappuram District, against any vacancies, including NJD vacancies, reported to the Public Service Commission after the expiry of Annexure A1 ranked lists, i.e., after 11.02.2023 and 18.02.2023 respectively.

In Aneesh Kumar V.S. v. State of Kerala [(2020) 7 SCC 301], the Apex Court agreed with the opinion of a Full Bench of this Court in Unnikrishnan Nair G.S. v. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KHC 24] that the Kerala Public Service Commission cannot advise any candidate after the expiry of a ranked list, even to an NJD vacancy, if such vacancies are reported after the expiry of the ranked list in question.

In the above circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in dismissing O.A.(EKM)Nos.256 of 2026 and 277 of 2026, by Ext.P2 orders dated 23.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 respectively, holding that the applicants have no legal right to get advice and appointment against any vacancies reported to the Public Service Commission after the expiry of Annexure A1 ranked lists. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P2 orders is neither perverse nor patently illegal. It cannot also be said that the Tribunal committed a manifest error while passing Ext.P2 orders. Therefore, no interference of this Court is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, these original petitions fail, and they are accordingly dismissed.

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO:96/2020/SSII CAT N0.137/2015 JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR II PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, K.P.S.C. WITH EFFECT FROM 19.02.2020.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2024 IN SLP 10155 AND 10156 OF 2024.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM RANKED LIST DATED 13.08.2025 NO:SSIL/JHI GR II/MCS/MLPM/2019 ISSUED BY KPSC CAT N0.137/2015 JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR II.

Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 242-243/2025 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14828 AND 14829/2024.

Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2025 IN CONMT.PET.(C)N0.242-243/2025 IN C.A.NO.14828-14829 /2024 OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED BY KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, DATE OF ADVICE: 17.01.2026.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) 277/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM WITH ANNEXURES

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OA(EKM)277/2026 DATED 26-2-2026 BEFORE THE KAT, ERNAKULAM

Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 80/2020/SSV PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTION TO THE POST OF JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE II (CATEGORY NO. 137/2015) IN THE MUNICIPAL COMMON SERVICE FOR THRISSUR DISTRICT WITH EFFECT FROM 12.02.2020.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2024 IN SLP 10155 AND 10156 OF 2024

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM RANKED NOTIFICATION DATED 19.08.2025 ISSUED BY KPSC NO:SSV/JHI GR I/MCS/TSR/2019

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.LSGD/JD/ TSR/2158/2024-A6 DATED 09.01.2026 ISSUED JOINT DIRECTOR, LSGD.

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE FOR APPOINTMENT OF JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR.II DATED 19.01.2026 ISSUED BY THE KPSC NO: R | (2) 4861/14.

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 IN CONMT.PET.(C) N0.242-243/2025 IN C.A.NO. 14828-14829/2024 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2025 IN CONMT.PET.(C)N0.242-243/2025 IN C.A.N0. 14828-14829/2024 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) 256/2026 WITH ANNEXURES

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OA(EKM)NO. 256/2026 DATED 23-2-2026