IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12470 of 2005(H)
1. RATHI.K.B., W/O.M.PRABHAKARAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
2. SOFIAMMA M.V.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :25/07/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.12470/2005 & 37497/2004
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioners in these two writ petitions were included in the
list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of HSA
(Physical Science) in Kasaragod district. Admittedly, the list
expired on December 30, 2004. It is the case of the petitioners
that the department had failed to report several vacancies which
had arisen during the period of validity of the list. More than
two or three counter affidavits and reply affidavits have been
filed in these writ petitions. Ultimately, it boils down the
question as to whether the assertions made by the petitioners
are correct or the stand taken by the department is tenable.
Undoubtedly, the issues raised by the parties are in the realm of
facts and facts alone. Necessarily, such issues have to be
thrashed out on the basis of the records available in the office of
the department concerned.
2. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is the
specific case of the petitioners that this court had issued an
W.P.(C)No.12470/2005 & 37497/2004
:: 2 ::
interim order on December 24, 2004 directing the department to
report 26 vacancies to the Commission. It is asserted by the
petitioners that the above order was received by the office of the
Deputy Director of Education on December 28, 2004 as is
revealed from Ext.P2 in writ petition No.37397/04. However,
the Deputy Director had not complied with the above direction.
Resultantly, 26 vacancies as directed by this court could not be
reported before the expiry of the list, viz. December 24, 2004. In
fact, the Deputy Director reported 24 vacancies only on January
1, 2005. It is true that the department has consistently taken
the stand that vacancies were not available to be reported. But
learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to a
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Writ
Appeal No.595/1981 and submits that if in fact vacancies were
available before the expiry of the list such vacancies ought to
have been reported. The failure on the part of the department to
report those vacancies should not be at the peril of the
petitioners. Yet again, it has to be verified from the records as
to whether vacancies were available at the time when the above
W.P.(C)No.12470/2005 & 37497/2004
:: 3 ::
direction was issued by this court. This again is a disputed
question of fact.
3. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to
respondent no.1 to call for the records, scrutinize the same and
pass appropriate orders in the matter in the light of the
observations made above. This shall be done within four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners
or their authorised representative shall be afforded sufficient
opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the
matter. Petitioners shall produce copies of the two writ
petitions, counter affidavits, reply affidavits etc. along with a
certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for
compliance.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes