IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3896 of 2010(J)
1. SHANDEEP KAKKARAYIL, S/O.K.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NOs. 3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123 OF 2010
==================================
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The issues raised in these writ petitions are common, and
therefore, the cases are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. WP(C) No.3896/10 is treated as the leading case.
3. Petitioner applied for the post of Draftsmen Grade II
(Civil) in Harbour Engineering/PWD/Ground Water Department.
Ext.P4 is the ranked list, which show that the ranked list was in
respect of the aforesaid department alone. However, by Ext.P5,
he was advised for appointment as Draftsman Grade I/Overseer
Grade I (Civil) in the Local Self Government Department.
According to the petitioner, candidates like him who has been
selected for the particular department cannot be advised for
another department, and therefore, the petitioner states that
Ext.P5 advising him to LSGD is illegal.
4. Although PSC and Government seek to justify the said
action of the respondents, in my view, a detailed consideration of
those factual issues are unnecessary. This is for the reason that
this Court has already held that a candidate who is included in a
WPC Nos.3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123/10
:2 :
ranked list for a particular department cannot be advised to
another department.
5. In the judgment in WP(C) No.2018/04, the PSC
advised candidates from the ranked list published for the post of
Junior Clerk in Travancore Titanium Products Limited to the
vacancies in the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund
Board. In that judgment, this Court held that the PSC has no
power or authority to advise candidates to the respondent Board
from a list published for appointment in a different
establishment. On that basis, writ petition was allowed.
6. Similar view was taken by this Court in the judgment
in WP(C) No.15115/04 where a candidate included in the ranked
list for the post of Lower Division Clerk was advised for
appointment as a Warden in the Scheduled Caste Development
Department. By judgment dated 30th of August, 2005, this Court
held that the candidate could not have been advised to another
department or post. By virtue of these judgments, the position is
settled that the petitioners are liable to be advised only to the
posts in respect of which ranked lists have been published. In
this case, admittedly, the petitioners have been advised for
WPC Nos.3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123/10
:3 :
appointment in the Local Self Government Department, which
was impermissible.
7. Learned counsel for the PSC relied on the judgments
of this Court in WP(C) No.30967/07 and 14019/2009. WP(C)
No.30967/07 was filed by candidates included in a ranked list for
the post of LD Clerk in Wynad District. They contend that the
Government as per notification dated 15/5/2007 declared the
post of Warden in Scheduled Tribes Development Department as
equivalent to that of clerical cadre, and therefore, the vacancies
of Warden should be reported and filled up from the ranked list
for Lower Division Clerks. That claim was upheld by this Court
by the aforesaid judgment. Similar was the facts involved in WP
(C) No.14019/2009. However, a reading of the judgment show
that, in these cases, writ petitions were filed by the candidates
who wanted to be advised and the contention that the right of a
candidate was to be advised only against vacancies in the
department in relation to which the ranked list was published,
was not considered by this Court. Therefore, these judgments do
not improve the case of the PSC.
8. Thus, in view of the principles laid down in the
WPC Nos.3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123/10
:4 :
judgments in WP(C) No.30967/2007 & 14019/2009, Ext.P5 memo
advising the petitioner is liable to be quashed and I do so.
Petitioner shall be retained in the ranked list and advise as and
when his turn arises.
9. The issue raised in WP(C) Nos.4050, 4465 and
18123/10 is also similar in all respects. For the aforesaid
reasons, the memos advising the candidates in these writ
petitions are also illegal and are set aside. These writ petitions
are allowed with a direction to the PSC to retain the petitioners
in the ranked lists, in which they were included, and advise
them, as and when their turn arises.
Writ petitions are allowed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp