Radha K.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25310 of 2008(K)


1. RADHA K.R., AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, S

4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/09/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                        ===============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 25310 OF 2008 K
                    ====================

             Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the 4th respondent

to fill up the remaining two vacancies already reported adhering to the

principle of communal rotation from Ext.P1 rank list itself.

2. Ext.P1 is the rank list prepared and published by the 4th

respondent for the post of HSA (Malayalam). It is not in dispute that 14

vacancies were reported and that only 12 candidates were advised.

Petitioner contends that for the remaining two vacancies, candidates are

liable to be advised from Ext.P1 list and if that be so, she being No.1 in the

OBC Supplementary list is entitled to be advised.

3. On the other hand, referring to Ext.P3, learned counsel for the

4th respondent tells me that the 2 remaining vacancies has been set apart

for re-notification. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing,

though the counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid

statement made by the counsel for the 4th respondent, he contended for

the position that among the candidates advised, there is no OBC candidate

and therefore communal rotation is violated. It is stated that if an OBC

WPC 25310/08
:2 :

candidate is advised, petitioner is liable to be advised. Though such a

submission was made, petitioner could not explain at which point of the

roster, the OBC turn has been overlooked. In the writ petition also, there

is no plea that any particular OBC point has been overlooked. If that be

so, I do not find any merit in the contention that OBC point has been

overlooked and vacancies due to them have been set apart for re-

notification.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp