Loading...

Pepsi Mohan vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Pepsi Mohan vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 935 of 2010(N)


1. PEPSI MOHAN, KOCHAYYATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :13/10/2010

 O R D E R
                           S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 -----------------------------------------
                    W.P. (C) NO. 935 OF 2010
                  ----------------------------------------
           Dated this the13th day of October, 2010.


                              JUDGMENT

The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether

after selecting the petitioner for the post of Lower Division Clerk

in various departments, the petitioner can be advised by the

Public Service Commission to the post of Warden in the Scheduled

Tribe Development Department. The Public Service Commission

has advised the petitioner to the post of Lower Division

Clerk/Warden in Scheduled Tribe Development Department. The

very question was considered by me in W.P.(C) No.25965 of 2010

wherein following other judgments of this Court, I held that the

Public Service Commission cannot advise candidates from the list

for Lower Division Clerks in various departments to the post of

Warden. That judgment reads as follows:-

“Pursuant to notification inviting applications for the
post of L.D.Clerk in various departments in Thrissur
District. The 1st petitioner was advised to the post of
LDC/Warden in ST Department. The grievance of the 1st
petitioner is that petitioner has been appointed as LDC and
posted as Warden which according to the petitioner is
illegal in so far as the 1st petitioner’s selection was to the
post of LD Clerk. The petitioners therefore, seeks the
following reliefs:

i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P2 and
P3 advice memos only to the extent to which those advice
the petitioners for appointment to the post of warden in ST

W.P. (C) NO. 935 OF 2010 2

Development Department and to the extent to which those
do not advice the petitioners for appointment to the post of
L.D.Clerk in various departments in Thrissur district;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents 1 and 2 to issue advice memo to the
petitioners, advising them to the post of L.D.Clerk in
various departments in Thrissur district on the basis of
their position in Ext.P1 ranked list;

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents 1 and 2 to modify Ext.P2 and P3 by converting
the same as one advising the petitioners for appointment to
the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments;

iv) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as
may be prayed for and that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Petitioners submit that the issue involved in this writ
petition is squarely covered by the decision of a learned
judge of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. The learned
counsel for the Public Service Commission stoutly opposes
the prayers. According to him, Ext.P4 judgment has been
taken in Writ Appeal No.1713 of 2010 and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be given the relief as in Ext.P4 pending
disposal of that appeal. He also relies on other decisions of
other single judges of this Court in W.P.(C).Nos.30967 of
2007 and 14019 of 2009 in answer to the same. The learned
counsel for the petitioner points out that those decisions
were also considered and have been distinguished by the
very same learned judge who passed Ext.P4 judgment, in
Maya v. State of Kerala in 2010 (3) KLT 454. The
petitioner’s counsel also points out that in the writ appeal
no stay was granted.

2. Having heard both sides.

3. I am inclined to follow Ext.P4 judgment which
reads thus:

“Petitioners were included in the ranked list for the
post of LDC in various Departments. However, they were
advised to the post of Warden in the Scheduled Tribe
Development Department as per Exts.P3, P4 and P5 advise
memos. The contention raised is that, they having been
included in the ranked list for the post of LDC in various
Departments, they could not have been appointed in the ST
Development Department as Warden. This case of the
petitioner is fully covered in their favour, in view of the
judgment in WP(C).No.3896 of 2010 and connected cases.
In view of the above, petitioners are entitled to succeed as

W.P. (C) NO. 935 OF 2010 3

they could not have been advised to Scheduled Tribe
Development Department as Warden. Accordingly,
Exts.P3,P4 and P5 stand set aside. Petitioners will be
retained in the ranked list and will be advised against the
immediately arising vacancies already reported”.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed in
terms of that judgment. That part of Exts.P2 and P3
contrary to the above decision shall stand set aside. The
respondents 1 and 2 shall issue appropriate orders
clarifying that the 1st petitioner has been advised to the
post of L.D. Clerk within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. This decision shall be applicable
only to the 1st petitioner since the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the second petitioner’s complaint
no longer survives.”

In the above circumstances this Writ Petition is disposed of

in terms of that Judgment.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.

mns

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