IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23958 of 2006(B)
1. BINDUMOL JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/11/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.23958 of 2006
==================
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was an applicant for selection to the post of
Overseer (Civil) in the Kerala State Electricity Board pursuant to a
notification inviting applications by the Public Service Commission. The
petitioner was not included in the rank list. The petitioner approached
this Court by filing O.P.No.11637/1997. By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court
held thus;
“2. Similar claims have been upheld by this Court.
Consequently, I direct that if the petitioner has secured the necessary
cut off mark, she has to be assigned the due position in the existing
rank list. She will be entitled to be reckoned for appointment when her
turn reaches. If appointments have been given to candidates below her
as per the permissible reckoning, petitioner may be advised to the next
position as might be advisable. The advice and appointment will not
affect the rights of persons already appointed.”
2. The petitioner claims advice to one of the vacancies
reported after Ext.P1 judgment. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P2
judgment this Court found that there were 12 non-joining duty
vacancies reported and in Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner therein was
directed to be advised against one of those vacancies. The petitioner,
therefore, seeks advice to one of the vacancies reported after Ext.P1
judgment.
3. The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit
wherein, the stand taken is that after Ext.P1 judgment no vacancies
w.p.c.23958/06 2
were reported to which the petitioner could have been advised.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. Ext.P1 is dated 9.12.2003. Ext.P2 judgment is dated
21.10.2003. Therefore, simply because in Ext.P2 judgment 12 NJD
vacancies were taken note of, it does not automatically follow that
those 12 vacancies were available after Ext.P1 judgment in favour of
the petitioner was rendered. The petitioner can succeed in this writ
petition only if the petitioner shows that after Ext.P1 judgment any
vacancies in the open category arose for advising the petitioner in
accordance with her rank assigned, which is 22A. Of course 61 persons
in the open category were earlier advised, which were prior to Ext.P1.
In Ext.P1 judgment it has been specifically made clear that if
appointments have been given to candidates below the petitioner’s
rank, the petitioner may be advised to the next position as might be
advisable and the advice and appointment will not affect the rights of
persons already appointed. Therefore, for accommodating the
petitioner, the persons, who have been already advised and appointed
cannot be disturbed. As such, for succeeding in this writ petition, the
petitioner has to necessarily prove that after Ext.P1 judgment a
vacancy for advice from the open category was reported to which she
could have been advised. The petitioner has not produced any material
to prove the same. On the other hand, the Public Service Commission
w.p.c.23958/06 3
in their counter affidavit has specifically stated that after Ext.P1
judgment no vacancies were reported in the open category so as to
accommodate the petitioner in accordance with her rank in the rank
list. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ
petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
