IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 34681 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------------- SREEREKHA C, ANIL BHAVAN, KANNIMEL, PATTAZHI P.O., KOLLAM - 691 522. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHY N.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3468/ 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: PHOTO COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NO.M.108943 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED MR. 11(1) 231/05/E2 DATED 26/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: PHOTO COPY OF THE FORM OF WILLINGNESS DATED 2/08/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE scm P.N RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 34681 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Shri. Joshy N. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and Shri. Alexander Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioner is a candidate included in the supplementary list of Ezhava candidates in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk in various departments in Malappuram District, published on 1/1/2006. While the ranked list was in force, 886 candidates were advised. The last candidate advised from the main list was rank No.725. The last Ezhava candidate advised was rank No.724 in the main list. With the advise of the last candidate, the main list of the ranked list stood exhausted on 14/08/2008. The petitioner's grievance is that the Kerala Public Service Commission did not properly advise candidates according to their turn and therefore she was overlooked. This is not the case pleaded in the writ petition. On W.P(C) No. 34681/2008 2 going through the writ petition, it appears that the case of the petitioner is that though she was offered appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the Muncipal Common Service and it was accepted by her, the appointment order has not been issued till date. The second contention is that the ranked list was prepared after prescribing cut off marks without publishing it in the notification. The contention now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ranked list was not properly operated. 3. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that by Exhibit P2 the Commission had only sought the willingness of the petitioner to be considered for advise, if her turn arises, for vacancies in the Municipal Common Service and that Exhibit P2 is not an offer of appointment. The Commission has also stated that the petitioner's turn did not arise, that the last candidate belonging to Ezhava community was rank No. 724 in the main list and that the main list stood exhausted on 14/8/2008 with the advise of the last candidate. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission did not follow the rules of W.P(C) No. 34681/2008 3 communal rotation and reservation properly is not a plea which is raised in the writ petition. It is totally a new plea which is raised during the course of arguments. Though such a plea is put forward in the reply affidavit, it is settled law that the averments in the reply affidavit can be relied on only to explain the facts already pleaded in the writ petition and traversed in the counter affidavit. The averments in the reply affidavit cannot be relied on to found a new case which is not pleaded in the writ petition. Further, none of the selected candidates who were advised in the turn available for Ezhava candidates are on the party array either in their individual or representative capacity. 5. The Apex Court has in Nair Service Service Society Vs. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission [2003(3) KLT 1126] held that candidates included in the supplementary list cannot be advised after the last candidate in the main list is advised for the reason that with such advise the main list of the ranked list will get exhausted and the supplementary list cannot thereafter be operated. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court and the undisputed fact that the main list of the ranked list stood exhausted on 14/8/2008, W.P(C) No. 34681/2008 4 the petitioner who is a candidate included in the supplementary list of Ezhava candidates cannot have any right to be advised for appointment. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE scm