PSC Recruitment Dispute | Pleadings, Orders Can't Be Published On PSC Website As Substitute For Notice To Candidates: Kerala High Court

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an original petition challenging an interlocutory order of the KAT refusing alternative modes of service in a recruitment dispute concerning the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II).

The petitioner-applicants, initially field an original application before the KAT seeking to stay operation of ranked list issued by the PSC in for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II). In the said original application, the Tribunal issued an interim order directing that the appointments from the ranked list would be subject to the result of proceedings.

Subsequently, a miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioners seeking to direct PSC to publish in their website, the PDF of the original application, the PDF of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal in the above original application for the information of all the candidates in the rank list and to insert an intra-site hyperlink in the individual profile of the rank list inside the dashboard of all these rank holders and treat the publication of the same as completion of service of notice to the respondents. 

The High Court examined whether the Tribunal could treat publication of the original application and interim orders on the PSC website, coupled with hyperlinks in individual candidate profiles, as valid service of notice on affected candidates; and proceed with the case without serving all affected candidates by invoking Rule 10(8) of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules.

The petitioners argued that such an approach was permissible under Rule 10(8), particularly given the practical difficulty of serving a large number of candidates and the impending expiry of the ranked list.

The Court examined Rule 10 governing service of notices, observed that while the Rules permit personal service, registered post, substituted service and, following the 2021 amendment, service through electronic means in appropriate cases, they do not authorise the Tribunal to deem publication on the PSC's website or candidate dashboards as completion of service.

The Court noted that Rule 4B mandates that all directly affected persons should ordinarily be made parties. Where they are numerous, the Tribunal may permit one or more of them to represent the class, but notice must still be given to all affected persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as directed by the Tribunal.

“The applicants could have filed a miscellaneous application, invoking the provisions under Rule 4B, seeking the permission of the Tribunal to implead one or more of the affected candidates on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected. In the absence of an appropriate order passed by the Tribunal, on a miscellaneous application filed under Rule 4B, the Tribunal cannot record its satisfaction under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 that the interests of the respondent on whom notice of the application has not been served is adequately and sufficiently represented by the respondent on whom notice of the application has been served.” Court noted.

The Court thus held that unless representative impleadment is first permitted under Rule 4B, the Tribunal cannot record the satisfaction required under Rule 10(8) that the interests of unserved respondents are adequately represented by those already before it.

With these observations, the Court noted there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the original petitions.

Case Title: Henna P.K and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: O.P.(KAT) 93/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 369

Counsel for Petitioner: S. Sabarinadh, Indulekha Joseph

Counsel for Respondents: Parvathy K. (GP), P.C. Sasidharan (SC - KPSC), Robson Paul (SC- Kerala Agricultural University)