High Court Kerala High Court

Pabasudhan.K vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Pabasudhan.K vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34978 of 2005(L)


1. PABASUDHAN.K, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NICY SEBASTIAN,
3. ANIL.K.D,
4. SINDHU.N.F,
5. MANOHARAN.A.K,
6. SIJIMOLE.P.S,
7. BEENA.K.B,
8. ANITHA.P.K,
9. SAJITHA.P.S,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,

3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER,

4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,

6. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

                For Respondent  :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

 Dated :25/01/2008

 O R D E R
                     K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,J.
                ================================
                 WRIT PETITION NO.34978 OF 2005
               =================================
                Dated this the 25th day of January 2008

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the persons included in the rank list

published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to

the posts of Livestock Inspector Grade II/Poultry Assistant/Milk

Recorder/Storekeeper/Enumerator in the Animal Husbandry

Department, Thrissur District. The rank list was due to expire on

30.12.2005. In the above background, the petitioners

approached this Court alleging that there were several vacancies

in the above cadre in the District and the appointing authority

was not reporting those vacancies. This Court, while admitting

the writ petition, passed an interim order on 15.12.2005 to

report all available vacancies in the above cadre to the PSC, so as

to reach it before 30.12.2005. According to the petitioners,

notwithstanding the direction, the vacancies available were not

reported. But, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit,

in which it is stated that all available vacancies were in fact

W.P.(C)34978/2005 2

reported and that from the list 156 persons were appointed.

Learned counsel for the PSC submitted that pursuant to the

direction only one vacancy was reported before 30.12.2005 and a

candidate has been advised to that vacancy. Next reporting of

vacancies took place only in July 2006, it is submitted.

2. This Court directed the PSC to advise candidates only to

those vacancies which were reported before the expiry of the

rank list. Standing Counsel submitted that the candidates were

advised to all the vacancies which were reported before the

expiry of the rank list to the PSC.

In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed

as infructuous.





                             K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, Judge

css/

W.P.(C)34978/2005    3


css/