Publishing court pleadings/ orders on PSC website not valid service of notice on litigant: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that publishing pleadings and interim orders on the website of Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) cannot be treated as valid service of notice on affected candidates in recruitment disputes [Henna PK & ors v State of Kerala & ors].

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by candidates challenging an order of the KAT refusing to adopt such a mode of service.

The Bench held that while the Tribunal has discretion to order substituted service in appropriate cases, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010, (2010 Rules) do not contemplate service of notice on the PSC website, as such a course would be contrary to the statutory rules.

"...the Tribunal cannot effect service of notices and processes to the respondents, who are candidates included in the ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, by directing the Public Service Commission to publish in their website, the PDF of the original application, the PDF of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal in the original application for the information of all the candidates in the ranked list, and by inserting an intra-site hyperlink in the individual profile, inside the dashboard of all the candidates in the ranked list, as sought for by the applicants...and then treat the publication of the same as completion of service of notices and processes on the respondents," the Court added.

The petition was filed by candidates included in the PSC rank list for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II) in the Agricultural Development and Farmers Welfare Department.

The petitioners approached KAT challenging the recruitment notification and the rank list stating that only candidates possessing a Diploma in Agriculture or Diploma in Organic Agriculture were eligible for appointment.

During the pendency of their application, the tribunal directed that all advice and appointments made from the rank list would be subject to the final outcome of the case.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application after the PSC furnished details of 79 candidates who would be affected by the proceedings.

They told the tribunal that serving notice to every candidate would consume a lot of time and could even lead to the proceedings becoming infructuous, as the rank list was due to expire on September 2026.

They pointed out that 45 of those candidates had already received appointment or joined service elsewhere and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice to them.

Thus, they asked tribunal to hear the matter without serving notice on all affected candidates.

Alternatively, they requested a direction to the PSC to publish the original application and interim orders on its website, insert hyperlinks in the individual dashboards of candidates in the rank list and treat such publication as completion of service of notice.

The tribunal rejected both their requests.

The candidates then moved the High Court.

They contended that Rule 10(8) of the 2010 Rules empowers the tribunal to adopt a different mode of service.

However, the Court rejected this contention stating that Rule 10 provided for service by hand delivery, registered post, through the head of department or a substituted service as directed by tribunal where it deemed necessary.

It clarified that the rule did not authorise the tribunal to direct the PSC to upload pleadings or interim orders on its website or candidates dashboard and treat such publication as completion of service.

The Court further added that by invoking Rule 4B of the 2010 Rules, the petitioners could have sought permission to implead one or more affected candidates in representative capacity, while ensuring notice was served to all by personal service or by public advertisement.

Therefore, the Court upheld the KAT order and dismissed the petition.

Advocates S Sabarinadh and Indulekha Joseph appeared for the petitioners.

Government pleader Parvathy K appeared for the State.

Standing counsel Robson Paul appeared for the Kerala Agricultural University.

Standing Counsel PC Sasidharan appeared for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 

[Read Judgment]