IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 635 of 2009()
1. T.M.BABURAJ, THALIKKULAM HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
4. SRASWATHI, C/O.M.N.MOORTHY, BHAGHYA,
5. PARVATHY AMMAL, LECTURER IN VIOLIN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :22/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.No.635/2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 22nd day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is the appellant. He was a candidate
included in Ext.P1 rank-list, published by the Public Service
Commission (for short “PSC”) on 16.4.1999 for appointment to
the post of Tutor Grade II (re-designated as Lecturer) in Violin,
which is a post borne on the Kerala Collegiate Education
Service. The appellant was the first Muslim candidate in the
rank-list with Rank No.21. According to him, if the communal
rotation was properly applied, he would have got advice and
consequential appointment. The rank-list expired on 15.4.2002,
which appears to have been extended up to 31.12.2002. The
Original Petition was filed, seeking proper application of the
communal rotation and to advice the appellant for appointment.
The PSC filed a counter affidavit, pointing out that the
communal rotation was applied correctly as per the 100 point
WA No.635/2009
– 2 –
roster given as Annexure II to Part II of the Kerala State &
Subordinate Services Rules. The learned Single Judge accepting
the said contention, dismissed the Original Petition. Hence this
appeal.
2. From the affidavit of the PSC, it is seen that in the 100
point roster, the last advice made from the previous rank-list
was MR 1, 11 OC (Main Rotation 1 – 11 Open Competition). At
that time 8 LC – NCA (No Candidates Available) and 10 OBC –
TPO (Temporary Pass Over) were remaining to be satisfied. At
the opening of the first selection year between 16.4.1999 and
15.4.2000 only one vacancy was reported. If it is given to a
reserved candidate, it will amount to reservation exceeding 50%
in a selection year. So, the turn 12 SC was temporarily passed
over and 13 OC, the first person in the rank-list was advised.
Subsequently, during that year two more vacancies were
reported. Among the two vacancies the first vacancy was used
for satisfying 10 OBC TPO. 14 Ezhava turn was passed over
temporarily and 15 OC candidate was appointed. This was done
because if an Ezhava candidate is appointed, the reservation will
WA No.635/2009
– 3 –
exceed 50%. Again, during that year one more vacancy was
reported. That was utilised for satisfying 12 SC TPO. In the
second selection year, only one vacancy was reported. So, 16
Muslim turn was temporarily passed over and 17 OC turn was
satisfied. During the third year also, only one vacancy was
reported. In the light of the rules then in force, 18 Ezhava turn
was temporarily passed over and it went to 19 OC turn.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that
the application of rotation is not proper. We notice that the 100
point roster combines rotation between OC candidates and
reserved candidates and also the sub-rotation among the
reserved candidates. As long as that roster is not challenged,
we are of the view that the PSC has strictly gone by the roster,
subject to the general principle that the reservation should not
be allowed to exceed 50% in a selection year, which is given
statutory recognition in Rule 15(d) of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules. We find no reason to disbelieve the
affidavit filed by a constitutional body like the PSC. Going by
the rules, the temporary pass over of the 16 Muslim turn was
WA No.635/2009
– 4 –
validly done. Any other course of action would have violated
Rule 15(d) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate
Services Rules. Further, even assuming, one vacancy should go
to the reserved group, it would have gone to 14 Ezhava turn,
which is temporarily passed over.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
K.Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
C.T.Ravikumar,
Judge.
nm.