IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28426 of 2009(W)
1. MUHAMMED GAUSE A.,
... Petitioner
2. ABDUL NIZAR E.,
3. MOHAMED M., S/O.MOHAMED ABDUL KHADER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :23/10/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 28426 of 2009-W
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are candidates included in the ranked list published
for appointment to the post of Part Time Junior Language Teacher – Arabic
in Thiruvananthapuram district which was published as per Ext.P1. The
ranked list came into force from 29.1.2008. The main prayer in the writ
petition is to enlarge Ext.P1 ranked list by publishing an additional ranked
list for the post of Part Time Junior Language Teacher – Arabic in
Thiruvananthapuram district. They have filed a representation in this
matter which is produced as Ext.P2.
2. From the averments in the writ petition, it is evident that the ranked
list contained eleven candidates in the main list and the said list has
exhausted also. The petitioners were included in the supplementary list as
rank Nos.3, 5 and 2. It is the case of the petitioners that even now there are
vacancies pending before the Public Service Commission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the
judgment of this court in Jyothishkumar v. State of Kerala (1996 (2)
KLT 444) also, the Commission is obliged to publish additional ranked list
wpc 28426/2009 2
since the main list is too short and as candidates like the petitioners are not
considered and appointed.
4. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission mainly
contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and
laches. Already the main list has exhausted. Therefore, the supplementary
list cannot be operated also. In the light of the above legal position, the
request of the petitioners as per Ext.P2 dated 28.8.2009 cannot at all be
considered. The petitioners have not approached this court within the time
during which the ranked list was in force. Reliance is also placed on the
decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.1173/2009. The
above appeal arose from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18916/2008. Similar
arguments were considered in the said writ petition also. Therein, this court
refused to grant leave since there is delay and laches in approaching this
court. The judgment of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (2006 (3)
KLT 854) was also considered therein. It is clear that the additional ranked
list published by the Commission pursuant to the judgment in
Jyothishkumar’s case (supra) cannot be relied upon by the petitioners to
contend for the position that in this case also, the same yardstick should be
adopted. The Division Bench in W.A. No.1173/2009 found that as the writ
petition is dismissed for delay and laches, no interference is called for.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that a direction
wpc 28426/2009 3
may be issued to the Commission to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2. I
find that no purpose will be served by directing the Commission to give a
reply to the petitioners since the said petition was also filed only on
28.8.2009, and by this time the main list has also exhausted.
For all these reasons, I find that the writ petition is not entertainable.
Hence, the same is dismissed. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/