A division bench of the Kerala High Court, led by Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, dismissed petitions from nursing officers who challenged a ruling by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The petitions were about the Kerala Public Service Commission’s (KPSC) decision to reject their applications for transfer appointments, which was based on their probationary status. The court confirmed that only those officially recognized as probationers or full-time members can apply for transfer appointments under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR), 1958.
Background
The case began with a petition from Angel Mary J.N. and other nursing officers working in Kerala’s Health and Family Welfare Department. They sought transfer appointments to become Assistant Professors in Nursing based on a notification from the KPSC inviting applications for such transfers. However, their applications were rejected because they had not completed their probation period. They appealed this decision to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their case, prompting them to take the matter to the High Court.
The petitioners argued that the only required qualification for the transfer post, according to government orders, was one year of service in their current positions. They claimed that the KPSC’s additional requirement of being declared probationary was unnecessary and not mentioned in the special rules for the position. To support their argument, they referenced the case of Sreejith K.K. v. Vinod, which stated that declared probation was not mandatory for transfer recruitment.
Arguments
Mr. Johnson Gomez, representing the petitioners, argued that the KPSC had misinterpreted the qualification rules by being too strict. He pointed out that the special rules in the government order (Annexure A10) only mentioned one year of service as the requirement, without including probation. By adding the probation condition, the KPSC was ignoring the specific provisions outlined in the government order. The petitioners also invoked the legal principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, which means that specific rules should take precedence over general ones, indicating that the KS&SSR rules should not override the specific rules in Annexure A10.
Conversely, Mr. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal defended the rejection of the petitioners’ applications. He pointed out that Rule 2(13) of the KS&SSR clearly states that recruitment by transfer is only for full members or approved probationers of the feeder category. He also referred to previous High Court rulings, particularly Riju K. v. The Controller, Legal Metrology, to argue that declared probation is a standard requirement for transfer recruitment. According to him, the KPSC acted properly within its authority by including probation as a criterion for eligibility.
Court’s Analysis
The court examined Rule 2(13) of the KS&SSR, which governs recruitment by transfer, stating that candidates must be either full members or approved probationers in their category. Since the petitioners had not completed their probation, the court found that the KPSC’s rejection of their applications was justified. The court dismissed the petitioners’ reliance on the Sreejith K.K. v. Vinod case, noting that the context was different because the feeder category in that case did not require a probation period, while it did in this case.
The court further clarified that Annexure A10 did not remove the probation requirement but set a minimum requirement of one year of service without conflicting with the broader KS&SSR rules. It also addressed the petitioners’ argument about generalia specialibus non derogant, concluding that there was no conflict between the special rules and Rule 2(13) of the KS&SSR. The special rules allowed for one year of service but did not eliminate the need to complete probation.
Lastly, the court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the KPSC’s actions were beyond its powers. It upheld the KPSC’s role under Article 320(3) of the Constitution to evaluate qualifications for government appointments, stating that requiring candidates to complete probation for transfer recruitment was within the KPSC’s authority.
The High Court concluded that the KPSC had acted correctly in rejecting the applications of the petitioners due to their incomplete probation. The order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was upheld, and the petitions were dismissed. The court emphasized that both the one-year service requirement and completion of probation were essential for recruitment by transfer under the KS&SSR.
