The Kerala High Court has ruled that uploading court pleadings or interim orders on the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) website cannot be regarded as valid service of notice on candidates affected by recruitment-related litigation.
The ruling came while dismissing a petition filed by candidates seeking to overturn an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which had refused to permit such a method of serving notices.
A Division Bench observed that although the Tribunal has the authority to direct substituted service in appropriate circumstances, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010 do not recognize publication on the PSC website as a legally acceptable mode of service.
The Court held that the Tribunal cannot require the PSC to upload PDF copies of original applications and interim orders on its website, add hyperlinks to the individual dashboards of candidates included in a ranked list, and then treat those uploads as proof that notices have been duly served. According to the Bench, adopting such a procedure would fall outside the framework prescribed by the statutory rules.
The dispute arose from recruitment to the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II) in the Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare Department.
Candidates included in the PSC rank list had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging both the recruitment notification and the final rank list. They argued that eligibility for the post should have been restricted to applicants holding either a Diploma in Agriculture or a Diploma in Organic Agriculture.
During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed that all appointments and advice issued from the disputed rank list would remain subject to the final outcome of the case.
After the PSC disclosed details of 79 candidates likely to be affected by the litigation, the petitioners informed the Tribunal that individually serving notices on each of them would significantly delay the proceedings. They also pointed out that the rank list was scheduled to expire in September 2026, raising concerns that the litigation could become ineffective before a final decision was reached.
The petitioners further submitted that 45 of the affected candidates had either already secured appointments or taken up employment elsewhere, making individual notice unnecessary in their view.
Based on these circumstances, they requested the Tribunal to proceed without issuing notices to every affected candidate. As an alternative, they proposed that the PSC publish the pleadings and interim orders on its official website, provide links to those documents through candidates’ personal dashboards, and treat the online publication as sufficient notice.
The Tribunal rejected both requests, prompting the candidates to challenge the decision before the High Court.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that Rule 10(8) of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010 gave the Tribunal enough flexibility to adopt a different method of serving notice.
The Bench, however, disagreed. It explained that Rule 10 specifically provides recognized methods of service, including personal delivery, registered post, service through the head of a department, or substituted service when directed by the Tribunal. The provision, the Court said, does not authorize the PSC to act as a platform for publishing court documents or permit website uploads to substitute formal service of notice.
The Court also observed that the petitioners had another procedural option available under Rule 4B of the 2010 Rules. They could have sought permission to implead one or more affected candidates in a representative capacity while ensuring that notice to the remaining candidates was effected through legally recognized methods such as personal service or public advertisement.
Finding no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning, the High Court upheld the KAT’s order and dismissed the petition.
