IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21922 of 2010(M)
1. ANITHA M.N, W/O.V.B.MUKUNDAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PORTS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
4. DISTRICT OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21922 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In response to the notification issued by the Public Service
Commission for recruitment to the post of LD Clerk in various
departments of the Government, the petitioner applied and was
included in Ext.P1 ranked list for Ernakulam District. Now by
Ext.P2, the petitioner has been advised to the Ports Department.
By Ext.P3 proceedings of the Director of Ports, the petitioner has
been appointed at the Headquarters vacancy at
Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner thereupon sought extension of
time for joining which has been granted till 21.7.2010. The prayer
sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to cancel
Ext.P2 advice memo and also to give a posting to the petitioner in
any other Department having LDC post in Ernakulam District.
2. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that previously four candidates advised by the
PSC were posted in the Ports Department and they avoided the
posting and it was therefore that the petitioner happened to be
advised. The further contention raised is that the Ports Department
WPC No.21922/2010
2
has no LDC post in Ernakulam District and therefore the petitioner
who is having the right to get posting back in the District of her
choice will not be able to avail of the said benefit, if she joins duty in
pursuance to Exts.P2 and P3.
3. As far as the first contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is concerned, the persons who have
allegedly advised for appointment to the Ports Department did not
report for duty in pursuance to appointment against Headquarter
vacancy are not impleaded in the writ petition nor has the petitioner
at least disclosed the details of such persons. If this contention is to
be accepted, this Court will have to interfere with the action of the
respondents in relieving the four persons from joining the post and as
a consequence thereof, these persons will naturally be affected by
such order. In the absence of those persons in the party array, this
Court cannot pronounce on the correctness of the contentions raised
by the petitioner.
4. In so far as the second contention that in the absence of
any vacancy in Ernakulam District in the Ports Department, the
petitioner could not have been advised against the Headquarter
WPC No.21922/2010
3
vacancy. There is no rule preventing the authorities from advising
the candidates even in the absence of vacancy in the District
concerned. At best, the consequence can only be that the petitioner
may not be able to get inter district/inter departmental transfer to
Ernakulam District. However that will not render the advice or
appointment illegal.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.21922/2010
4
WPC No.21922/2010
5