IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36542 of 2005(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SIVAKUMAR. K., SAVITHRI NIVAS, KANNAMBRA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R3 & R4 IS IMPLEADED: R3. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 1/06/2007 IN I.A.NO.9724/06) R4. KARUNAKARAN, ACHAYATH HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O., PATTAMBI, PIN – 679 305. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 1/06/2007 IN I.A.NO.7154/07) BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR - R3 BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.36542/2005 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DTD. 16/12/1997. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.334/99/AD DTD. 8/12/1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DTD. 10/12/2002 FOR THE POST OF LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE II IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36542 of 2005 A ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Public Service Commission for the post of Live Stock Inspector Grade II, the petitioner applied against the 10% vacancies set apart for Ex-servicemen to be filled up on the basis of priority in the following manner: (a) Ex-service Personnel. (b) Wives & Children of Ex-service Personnel (c) Dependent brothers and sisters of Ex-service personnel & serving personnel. 2. The Government had, vide Ext.P2 order, re-assigned the priority in the matter of reservation for the dependents of the defence service personnel. According to the petitioner, since the 10% vacancies are to be filled up from the defence quota (as broadly categorised), the apportionment of the total vacancies should have been done in such a manner that the 10% reservation is satisfied. When the writ petition W.P.(C).NO.36542/05 :: 2 :: was originally instituted, the case of the petitioner was that the Public Service Commission had advised 3 candidates from the rank list and consequently the candidate for (defence quota) from list No.2 one Ratheesh Kumar (Rank No.2) and one Anil Kumar S. (Rank No.3) were advised for NJD vacancy. The Public Service Commission had, thereafter, issued advice memos in relation to 5 vacancies. But, no candidate from list No.2 holding SSLC was advised. The petitioner submitted that on the basis of the advice dated 29.11.2005 and subsequent advices, one vacancy should have been earmarked to the wives and children of Ex- servicemen and since no candidate was available in the list earmarked for recruitment from dependents of defence personnel, the petitioner was entitled to be advised for the vacancy. It is, therefore, that he filed this writ petition on 29.10.2007. But apparently, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the rank list had already expired on 10.12.2005. At any rate, there is nothing in the writ petition to indicate knowledge. W.P.(C).NO.36542/05 :: 3 :: 3. Counter affidavits were filed by the Public Service Commission as also the Government, inter alia, pointing out that after the original advice, one NJD vacancy was reported, subsequent to the advices earmarked for category and quota from which NJD vacancy had been generated. The vacancies earmarked for the defence quota were subjected to further sub- classification. The petitioner fell in category 3(3) relatable to dependents of defence personnel. When one vacancy had arisen, which could be filled up by sub-category, a candidate was advised. But, when a subsequent NJD vacancy arose, it went to the open quota. Faced with the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, the petitioner sought for amendment of the writ petition and according to him, the NJD vacancy, which had gone to an open quota, should have actually gone to the defence quota and according to him, even the original vacancy, which had been earmarked for the open quota, should have gone to the defence quota. Had it been so done, he would have secured a chance, under defence category 3(3). This is the case which has been W.P.(C).NO.36542/05 :: 4 :: put forward by the petitioner in the amendment petition. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned stand counsel for the PSC Sri.Alexander Thomas and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Nandakumar. 5. No doubt, the challenge by the petitioner is against the apportionment of the vacancies by the appointing authority. But, there is no case for the petitioner that 10% quota, that has to be set apart for the defence personnel, was ultimately not satisfied by enforcement of the rank list as such, nor does the petitioner have a case that the total number of vacancies, which were reported to the Commission by the requisitioning authority, ultimately were not responded to. The net result is that even if the case of the petitioner that the apportionment of the vacancies by the appointing authority was erroneous is partly accepted for arguments' sake, no purpose will be served insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since the list had expired on 10.12.2005. This W.P.(C).NO.36542/05 :: 5 :: court cannot now direct the Commission to enforce a time expired list. Even if any vacancy had remained un-responded to, at the time of expiry of the rank list, it could be carried over to the next year and made available to the commission for filling it up in the next recruitment process. I again take note of the fact that the petitioner had approached this court on 27.12.2007 and the rank had expired long ago. For all these reasons, I do not find my way to grant any relief to the petitioner. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//