IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 1122 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAHMATH BEEGUM.J., AGED 46, D/O.JAFFAR HUSSAIN, AMEENA MANZIL, MANAKKATTU VILAKAM, WEST OF M.H.S. GROUND, KANIYAMPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 301. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SRI.UDAYAKUMAR SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON 28/09/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.1122/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15/11/2005 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PSC BULLETIN. P2 COPY OF THE RANK LIST (MAIN LIST) AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR) HINDI. P3(A) COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 27/11/10. P3(B) COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER TO EXT P3(A) APPLICATION, DATED 10/12/10. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5/1/11. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6(A) COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 3/1/2011. P6(B) COPY OF THE REPLY OF EXT.P6(A) APPLICATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1122 of 2011-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is one seeking for a direction to the first respondent to enlarge the main rank list for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) Hindi in the department of Higher Secondary Education. 2. Pursuant to the notification issued, the petitioner applied for the post and has been included in the ranked list published as per Ext.P2 dated 17.11.2008. In the notification Ext.P1, vacancies likely to be reported, has been shown as 22. According to the petitioner, Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) show that after the coming into force of the rank list, 72 vacancies have been filled up and there are 108 HSST (Junior) Hindi posts remaining vacant to be filled up during the end of March 2001 and five more retirement vacancies are expected. It is pointed out that the action of the Public Service Commission in including only 95 candidates in the main list as against 185 vacancies likely to be reportable during the currency of the rank list, is not correct. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission, it wpc 1122/2011 2 is explained that the short list was published on 26.6.2007. The writ petition is highly belated. Prior to the finalisation of the shortlist, only 39 vacancies had been reported to the Public Service Commission, consisting of 22 fresh vacancies and 17 NJD vacancies. Based on these reported vacancies, the short list was prepared by including 286 candidates, consisting of 95 candidates in the main list and 191 candidates in the supplementary list. Thus, it is submitted that the same satisfies the requirement of law. As on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, 79 vacancies have been reported, out of which 78 candidates have been duly advised. The petitioner is included as rank No.6 in the Muslim supplementary list. Thus, it is mainly contended that the list contains more than seven times the number of vacancies reported and the main list is more than 2.43 times. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission (2009 (2) KLT 295 - FB). 4. The very same issue was considered by me in W.P.(C) Nos.1800/2010 and 34344/2010 and by judgment dated 4.7.2011 they were dismissed. It was noticed therein that the last candidate advised in Muslim reservation turn is rank No.95 in the ranked list. wpc 1122/2011 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various rules of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, to contend that the Commission is expected to publish from time to time expanded ranked list based on the reporting of further vacancies from time to time. It is also contended that the Commission has got power to require the appointing authority to submit various details. It is therefore submitted that the initial notification itself which shows only 22 vacancies, was bad. It is also submitted that a fair procedure was not adopted. Particular reference was made to Rules 4, 5, 13, 14 and 21 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. 6. Rules 4 and 5 of the above rules respectively provide for the procedure for publication of rank list, wherein the selection process consists of written examination as well as interview. Evidently, the emphasis is made in the rules that the Commission has got power to prepare the list of such number of candidates which the Commission can be determine from time to time. Rules 13 and 14 provides as follows: “13. The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into fore provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period wpc 1122/2011 4 of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier.” 14. The Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive in the order of priority, if any, and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable.” Relying upon the above rules, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vacancies can be reported from time to time during the period of three years and therefore, as the Commission is having the details of the candidates who have been interviewed, like the one herein, it permits publication of expanded rank list also based on the number of vacancies reported. It is pointed out that the stand taken by the Commission that the list was exhausted by advising the 95th candidate, cannot be justified. 7. Rule 21 empowers the Commission to call for any record, report or information which may be necessary to enable them to discharge their functions. Such information can be called from the Government or from any Head of a Department. 8. Obviously, the above contention cannot be accepted on its face value, since as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, the entire issue is covered against the petitioner, by the wpc 1122/2011 5 decision of the Full Bench in Ravidas's case (2009 (2) KLT 295) - FB). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that some of the rules relied upon by the petitioner, have not been considered therein. In fact, in para 42 of the said judgment, this Court considered the power of the Commission to fix the number to be included in the rank list and it was held thus: “The petitioners have no right to claim that all the vacancies arising over a period of 3 years should be filled up from only one ranked list. As per the rules, the validity of a ranked list (except in the case of recruitment to posts involving training) is for a period of 3 years from the date of publication or till a fresh ranked list is published, whichever is earlier. The Commission is therefore free to notify vacancies and publish a fresh ranked list without waiting for the period of 3 years to run out. Further, recruitment by the Commission to the State Civil Service is a continuous and ongoing process. Every year hundreds of thousands of students pass out of schools and colleges in the State. If the contention of the petitioners that the Commission should publish ranked lists large enough to fill up all the vacancies arising during a period of 3 years from its publication is accepted, students who pass out of schools and colleges will have to wait for years after completion of their studies to even apply for employment. The Commission decides on the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list based on the vacancies actually reported to them and where the vacancies do not exist and are not reported, based on vacancies anticipated to arise.” wpc 1122/2011 6 This was on an interpretation of Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure. Evidently, it shows that the Commission's obligation to fix up the number is after considering the vacancies actually reported to them and also in some cases the anticipated vacancies. This Court was of the view that if the contention of the petitioners that the Commission should publish the ranked lists large enough to fill up all the vacancies arising during a period of 3 years from its publication is accepted, students who pass out of schools and colleges will have to wait for years after completion of their studies to even apply for employment. Obviously, a similar contention as raised by the petitioner herein, was rejected by the Full Bench. 9. Herein, evidently 22 vacancies were available at the time of notification and 17 JND vacancies were there. The main list contained 95 candidates. Therefore, it satisfies the requirement of law. When the main list and supplementary list are taken together, it contained 286 candidates. 10. In the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Ravidas's case (2009 (2) KLT 295), it can be seen that the contention raised by the petitioner that every time when vacancies are reported, the Commission will have to publish expanded rank list, cannot be accepted. The preparation and finalisation of a rank list is based on various factors and it is not as if wpc 1122/2011 7 that the Commission will have to prepare expanded rank list from time to time. In fact, the Commission is having power to publish a notification for the next selection, during the currency of a ranked list. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/