IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 835 of 2009(U)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.K.SUBRAHMANIAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.835/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 35456/2008-U
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010.
O R D E R
This review petition is filed by the State seeking to review the
judgment in W.P.(C) No.35456/2008.
2. Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the review petitioner,
learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for
the Kerala Sports Council.
3. The review petition is filed contending that after the coming into
force of the Kerala Sports Act, the appointment of regular staff can be made
only after consultation with the Public Service Commission, going by
Section 44 of the Act. It is pointed out that after the coming into force of
the Kerala Sports Act, the Council is not competent to make any regular
appointment without prior concurrence of the Government. It is also
pointed out that as per Section 6 of the Act and consequent to the
reconstitution of the State Sports Council in 2006, a standing committee
should be constituted which shall exercise the powers and discharge the
functions as may be entrusted to it by the State Sports Council. It is further
pointed out that the Government was not a party to the writ petition and
rp 835/2009 2
therefore they could not bring to the notice of this Court the above aspects.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that
even thought Kerala Sports Act has been promulgated, Kerala Public
Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations
and Companies) Act, 1970 and the Kerala Public Service Commission
(Consultation by Corporations and Companies) Rules, 1971 have not been
amended to enable the Sports Council to come within the purview of the
Act and Rules. It is pointed out that in the absence of any amendment as
noted above, the provisions of Section 44 as regards consultation with the
Public Service Commission cannot be given effect to.
5. Normally, the procedure for conducting of selection to appoint
persons in any establishment will be governed by the Act, Rules and
Regulations in force as on the date of the notification. True that by an
amendment of the same or by bringing a legislation, the same can be
interfered with, but only under known process of law. The requirements for
such an exercise are wellknown and are settled by various decisions of this
Court and that of the Apex Court.
6. Evidently, even though the Sports Act was brought into force, the
amendments in the other enactments and the relevant rules as pointed out by
the first respondent, have not been made so far. Therefore, the contention
rp 835/2009 3
that only under Section 44 of the Kerala Sports Act alone, any appointment
can be made, cannot be accepted. Apart from that, there was no legal
impediment for the Sports Council to initiate the process of appointment in
terms of the rules and regulations and the procedure which was being
adopted by them. No other legal impediment is pointed out by which they
are restrained from continuing with the selection process.
7. In the judgment impugned, this Court has only held that as there is
already a notification and as the steps for the selection of candidates have
been completed, there is no reason as to why the further action in the matter
should be kept pending. It is in that context, this Court ordered that the
further action for publication of rank list can be finalised.
8. Whether, as pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader, only a
standing committee alone can go into the further procedure for selection, is
a matter for the Sports Council to take appropriate decision. I am not
finally pronouncing anything upon that aspect.
9. In the light of the above, even if the Government was not a party to
the writ petition, in the light of the legal position as pointed out above, this
Court cannot accept the argument that in the light of Section 44 of the
Kerala Sports Act, appointment of regular staff can be made only after
consultation with the Public Service Commission. In that view of the
rp 835/2009 4
matter, there is no apparent error in the judgment. The review petition is
therefore dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/