High Court Kerala High Court

Pradeep Kumar.D.S. vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2006

Kerala High Court
Pradeep Kumar.D.S. vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26886 of 2006(A)


1. PRADEEP KUMAR.D.S., KANJIRAM VILA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.

4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

5. DISTRICT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

 Dated :30/11/2006

 O R D E R
                            K.K.DENESAN, J.

                    -----------------------------

                       WP(C)No. 26886 OF 2006 A

                    -----------------------------

                 Dated this the 30th November, 2006.



                                JUDGMENT

Rank list published by the Commission for appointment

to the post of Junior Health Inspector Gr.II in Kollam

district came into force with effect from 28.10.2002. The

maximum period for which the rank list can be kept alive is

over by 27.10.2005. The petitioner says that having regard

to the number of vacancies reported, he was entitled to be

advised for appointment, considering his rank position.

The Public Service Commission was therefore directed to

furnish the relevant particulars regarding the number of

vacancies reported and the number of candidates advised

from the list.

2. Counsel for the Commission submits that 143

vacancies have been reported from the department for advise

of candidates and the Commission has advised 140 candidates

from the rank list. It is also submitted that candidates

could not be advised against three vacancies since none

belonging to the particular reserved community was

available in the list. Therefore, in terms of Rules 14 and

15 of K.S & S.S.R as amended, those vacancies are kept

unfilled. Candidates can be advised against the above

three vacancies only from the next list provided candidates

WPC 26886/2006 2

belonging to the particular reserved communities find a

place in that list.

3. Considering the rank position of the petitioner

there is no chance of he being advised for appointment

against the vacancies thus reported. This being the

factual position, the directions sought for in this writ

petition cannot be issued. Writ petition is therefore

dismissed.

K.K.DENESAN

Judge

jj