[Article 226] Court can grant relief to which party is entitled even if not specifically sought for: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that there is no fetter on the Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief that a party is entitled to, even if the specific relief hadn't been sought for in the petition [Smitha MG v State of Kerala]..A division bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and CS Sudha observed thus in the order allowing an appeal:"... merely for the reason that a specific relief has not been sought in the writ petition, it is not an impediment for the court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief which a party is entitled to.".The Court was considering an appeal moved by a candidate to the post of Computer Assistant Grade II and was ranked 3rd in the supplementary list of those from the Viswakarma community in the selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission.The candidate ranked 2nd in the same list relinquished the claim by a letter but the Commission rejected the letter and advised her for appointment to a vacant post.When the appellant first approached the Court seeking orders to the Commission to appoint her to the post, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Commission contending, inter alia, that the relinquishment letter of the fourth respondent was rejected since the same was not in accordance with Rule18(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief.The single-judge took the view that since the petitioner had not challenged the decision of the Commission in rejecting the relinquishment letter of the fourth respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for, and dismissed the writ petition accordingly. Before the division bench, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Commission does not have a case that the relinquishment letter submitted by the other candidate lacked any of the necessary particulars.The Court, upon going through the relinquishment letter, concurred with the appellant and found that since the Rules were complied with in the relinquishment letter, the candidate ranked next, which was the appellant in the instant case, is entitled to the benefit of the same.Further, it opined that even though there was no specific prayer in that regard, the petition was essentially moved to challenge the decision rejecting the relinquishment letter.Stating that there is no impediment to granting reliefs that a party is entitled to even if it wasn't specifically pleaded for, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the Commission to advise the appellant for appointment to the same vacancy that had been advised to the other candidate..[Read Judgment]