Loading...

Indusree.B.R vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Indusree.B.R vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29439 of 2008(D)


1. INDUSREE.B.R,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL

3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/11/2008

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J

     -----------------------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.29439/2008
     -----------------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008


                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner submits that he had responded to the

notification issued by the 3rd respondent for filling up the

post of Lecturer in Information Technology. It is stated that,

in the ranked list that has been published, he has been

included at Sl.No.19.

2. Referring to Ext.P2, counsel for the petitioner

submits that, from out of the list 18 OC candidates have

been advised and that if any further vacancies reported,

petitioner is the next candidate to be advised. According to

the petitioner, one of the candidates, ie rank No.18 in

Ext.P2, who was already advised has not joined duty and

therefore there is a NJD vacancy to be reported. It is stated

that the list is to expire on 13.12.2008 and therefore the

WP(c).No.29439/08 2

delay if any caused in this regard will deprive the petitioner

of the chance to get advised.

3. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand

would submit that rank No.18, though advised had initially

sought 45 days joining time and on expiry there of, sought

further extension of 90 days. It is stated that as at present

no decision has been taken on his request and therefore

presently there is no NJD vacancy to be reported to the PSC.

4. From the above it is obvious that, rank No.18 has

not so far joined duty and his request for extension of

joining time is also pending consideration of the authorities.

In the meanwhile, the list is expiring and in the event he

does not ultimately join, even if there occur a vacancy after

the expiry of the list, the petitioner will be loosing his

opportunity.

5. In order to avoid such a situation, I direct that the

second respondent shall report one vacancy to the 3rd

respondent and the 3rd respondent need not advice any

WP(c).No.29439/08 3

candidate in response there to. In the event there occur a

NJD vacancy as contended by the petitioner, on being

intimated of the same, the 3rd respondent shall advice an

eligible candidate against that vacancy.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall

produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent

for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE

vi.

WP(c).No.29439/08 4

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information