IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10288 of 2010(I)
1. SATHEESH CHANDRAN.A,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 10288 OF 2010 (I)
=====================
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is presently a Head Constable. In response to the
notification issued by the PSC, he applied for the post of
Confidential Assistant Grade II. In Ext.P3 ranked list published, he
was included at Rank No.9 in the direct recruitment quota and
Rank No.1 in the by transfer category. By Ext.P4, petitioner was
advised for appointment under the direct recruitment quota.
Thereupon, he states that he made Ext.P5 representation
requesting the PSC to advise him in the by transfer category as
otherwise petitioner realised that he will be incurring financial
loss. To this, he got Ext.P6 reply stating that in view of Ext.P4
advise, he has been removed from the ranked list on the basis of
Rule 18(iii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure. It is thereupon that this
writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P6 and to direct
the respondents to retain the name of the petitioner in the ranked
list in the category of recruitment by transfer in Ext.P3 ranked list.
Rule 18(iii) of the PSC Procedure Rules reads as under:
18(iii)A candidate whose name has been included in
more than one Ranked List for the same post in the
WPC No. 10288/10
:2 :
Same department/Various departments finalized on
the basis of the very same notification under different
methods of recruitments/appointments and when such
a candidate is advised by the Commission for
recruitment from anyone of the aforesaid Ranked Lists,
his name shall be removed from the other Ranked
List/Lists.
2. There is no challenge to this Rule. A perusal of Exts.P1
and P2 show that it was under the very same notification the
applications were invited, though for different methods of
recruitment. If that be so, by force of Rule 18(iii), once a person is
appointed to one of the categories, he is liable to be removed
from the other category. If that be the case, petitioner’s name
could not have been retained in the ranked list once he was
advised by Ext.P4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since
he was the only candidate included in the by transfer category,
once he is removed from the list, it will not be possible for the PSC
to maintain the ratio. Since under Rule 18(iii) and in view of
Ext.P4, petitioner was liable to have been removed from the
ranked list, it is upto the PSC to do the needful for maintaining
WPC No. 10288/10
:3 :
ratio, but that does not however mean that inspite of Rule 18(iii),
the petitioner’s name should be retained in the list. I see nothing
objectionable in Ext.P6.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp