IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18424 of 2008(R)
1. INDULEKHA B.S , AGE 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SUJAMOL.M.,AGED 33 YEARS
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY
3. DISTRICT OFFICER
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
For Petitioner :DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.18424,18763,18916,19536,
20204,20269&25692/08
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The issue raised in these writ petitions is regarding
sustainability of the claim of the petitioners for publication
of additional rank lists for the post of HSA(English).
2. It is stated that, on 26.4.2002, a common
notification was issued by the PSC for filling up the post of
HSA (English)in all the Districts in the State. Written tests
were held on 21.10.2004 and shortlists were published
sometime in early 2005. In so far as these writ petitions are
concerned, petitioners are candidates who participated in
the selection process for Kollam, Kozhikode,
Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts and ranked lists
were published on 20.9.2005,21.10.2005, 8.6.2005 and
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 2
30.8.2005 respectively. Similarly, rank lists were also
published in so far as the other Districts in the State are
concerned.
3. During 2005, several writ petitions were filed
before this court seeking orders for publication of
additional ranked lists, for 8 Districts, other than the
aforesaid four Districts and Pathanamthitta and Idukki
Districts. These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division
Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Ajayan V.
Sate of Kerala (2006(3)KLT 854). The Public Service
Commission challenged the aforesaid judgment before the
Apex Court by filing special leave petitions which were
dismissed by order dated 26.3.2008, on the ground that it
was not maintainable as PSC had no locus standi in the
matter. It is stated that, implementing the said judgment,
shortlists for 8 districts covered by the judgment reported in
Ajayan’s case were published and the steps for the
publication of the additional ranked lists have been taken.
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 3
4. Though the judgment reported in Ajayan’s case
was rendered in writ petitions filed in 2005, these present
writ petitions concerning Kollam, Kozhikode,
Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts were filed in
July, August and September 2008 and relief similar to what
was granted in Ajayan’s case is prayed for.
5. The contention raised is that, the petitioners being
candidates similarly situated like the petitioners who filed
the earlier batch of writ petitions should also get the benefit
of the judgment in Ajayan’s case and that the PSC should
publish additional ranked lists concerning these districts as
well. Counsel for the petitioners claim parity in treatment
relying on the judgments reported in State of Karnataka &
Ors V. C. Lalitha (2006(1) Supreme Today 640),
Somukuttan Nair V. State of Kerala (1997(1)KLT 6901)
and K.T. Veerappa & Ors V. State of Karnataka and
Ors.(2006(9) SCC 406).
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 4
6. The standing Counsel for the Public Service
Commission submits that though the SLP filed against the
judgment in Ajayan’s case supra was dismissed, review
petition filed before the Apex Court is pending and that
pending consideration of the review, the judgment has been
implemented in so far as the 8 districts covered by the
judgment are concerned. It is stated that, in so far as other
Districts are concerned, no direction has been issued by this
court and they have not implemented the judgment. It is
stated that fresh notification has been issued for
preparation of ranked lists. It is contended that the
petitioners herein are guilty of delay and laches and that
even for claiming the benefit of the judgment, the conduct
of the party concerned is relevant. They are also heavily
relying on the judgment in Ajayan’s case, where it has
been held as follows;
“Those who have not challenged the list so far,
even if similarly placed, will not be entitled to the
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 5
benefits as they have slept over the matter for
years.”
7. It is contended that in so far as the petitioners
herein are concerned, though the final ranked lists were
published way back in 2005, they have slept over their
rights and approached this court belatedly, only in July,
August and September, 2008. According to the PSC for this
reason itself, petitioners have rendered themselves
disentitled to any relief in this writ petition.
8. Public Service Commission would also invite my
attention to the judgment in WP(c).No.20521/2005, filed by
candidates from the Kozhikode District, which was dismissed
by this Court. It is pointed out that this judgment was
confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1738/2008,
though on the ground of delay. Counsel for the PSC also
referred to me, the judgment of the Full Bench reported in
Sathydevan V. PSC (2008(1) KLT 289), where the Full
Bench has confined the relief granted only to the parties to
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 6
the judgment. On this basis, PSC prays for dismissal of the
writ petitions.
9. As already noticed, the judgment reported in
Ajayan’s case was rendered by this court on 13.6.2006 in
writ petitions which were filed in 2005. Admittedly, the
petitioners herein have approached this court only in July,
August and September, 2008. The question is whether by
reason of the delay in filing the writ petitions and asserting
their rights, the petitioners have rendered themselves
disentitled to the relief sought for.
10. In my view, answer has in the judgment in
Ajayan’s case itself by which the earlier round of
litigations were disposed of. In that judgment it has been
held that those who have not challenged the lists so far,
will not be entitled to the benefits as they have slept over
the matter for years.
11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners
wanted me to understand this finding of the Division Bench
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 7
as one applying to the two Homeo Medical Officers’ writ
petitions which were also considered along with the writ
petitions filed by candidates for HSA post. I am not in a
position to restrict the impact of the aforesaid findings in the
manner as canvassed by the counsel for the writ petitioners.
There cannot be a different law of limitation or delay or
laches for Homeo Medical Officers.
12. Even for claiming the benefit of a judgment, the
conduct of the party is relevant and if claim is raised is
belatedly, Court will decline relief. This has been accepted
by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in U.P. Jal
Nigam & Another V. Jaswant Singh & another(2006
(11)SCC 464) and A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd. State
of Kerala (2007(2)SCC 725). These judgments were
followed by a Division Bench of this court in State of
Kerala V. Thirumeni(2007(4)KLT 938). In fact that is
also a case where the benefit of previous judgments were
declined on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore,
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 8
though the petitioners are similarly situated to the
beneficiaries of the judgment reported in Ajayan’s case,
by reason of delay itself they have rendered themselves
ineligible for the benefits thereof.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment reported in State of Karnataka & Ors V. C.
Lalitha (2006(1) Supreme Today 640) and claimed that if
relief has been granted in respect of a similarly situated
person, the same should be extended to all other persons. A
reading of the judgment shows that, it was rendered in a
case where the seniority was restored to a person,
following a judgment, while the same benefit was declined
to similarly situated persons. It is clear that if seniority is
revised following a judgment, all those who are included in
the seniority list are also eligible for the benefits thereof. In
this case, the law laid down by the Apex court in the
aforesaid judgment can have no relevance especially since
separate ranked lists have been published for each Districts.
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 9
In so far as the decision reported in Somukuttan Nair V.
State of Kerala(1997(1) KLT 601) is concerned, this court
only reiterated the settled legal position that once a
general declaration of law is made the same has to be
applied uniformly to all. When appreciated in the context of
the law laid down by the Apex Court that even for claiming
the benefit of the judgment, the conduct of the party is
relevant, I am not in a position to apply the aforesaid
judgment to the facts of these cases at this distance of time
and hold that the petitioners are entitled to the relief in this
writ petition. In my view, the petitioners are guilty of delay
and laches and therefore they are not entitled to relief
sought for. The position canvassed by the standing counsel
for the PSC is supported by the Full Bench decision reported
in Sathydevan V. PSC(2008(1)KLT 289).
Counsel for the petitioners contended that unless
prejudice is caused, delay or laches cannot result in denial
of relief to them. I am not impressed by this submission.
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 10
Once the lists were exhausted PSC has already issued
notification for preparing fresh ranked list. If additional
ranked lists are ordered to be published, necessarily there
will be reduction in vacancies available to those who are
offering their candidature in response to the notification
and these candidates are certainly prejudiced.
On an over all consideration of the facts, I am not
satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for
interference.
Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 11