IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2315 of 2004(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNNI KUNNARATH, BLATHUR, KALLIAD P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2315/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF RANKED LIST WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 30/06/2003. P2 : COPY OF ADVICE LIST SHOWING THE ORDER AND NAME OF THE CANDIDATES ADVISED BY THE PSC. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/01/2003 ISSUED BY R3. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2315 of 2004 (A) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was included in the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission on 30/06/2000 for appointment to the post of Male Warden in the Department of Jail. The validity of the list was to expire on 29/06/2004. But the same was extended and the ranked list expired on 05/01/2004. 2. The petitioner's case is that while advising candidates, communal rotation has not been properly complied with. The relevant pleadings in the writ petition reads as under :- “-----. That is to say the person with rank No.104 or 108 ought to have been shown as person No.52 in the advice seniority list and assigned seniority accordingly. But the person who is now shown as Sl.No.52 is a Latin catholic and not an OBC. Actually person No.104 in Ext.P1 ought to have been placed as person No.52 in Ext.P2 list. But person No.108 in Ext.P1 was advised and appointed in the open category and not in the OBC category. Therefore had person No.104 in Ext.P1 been assigned position No.52 in Ext.P2, the petitioner would have been advised as the next person belonging to OBC category after 104 in Ext.P1. If a candidate in OBC category was placed as Sl.no.52 in Ext.P2, person No.104 in Ext.P1 would have been placed as No.94 in Ext.P1. The next turn after 94 would be for the petitioner. Thus WP(C) No.2315/2004 -2- the violation of the communal rotation as resulted in denial of advice and appointment to the petitioner.” 3. The only answer stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that communal benefits are granted to the candidates based on the claim made by them in the application and the proof produced before the Commission, and candidates cannot be advised based on the blad averment of the petitioner. In my view, this answer is too vague. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the aforesaid pleadings in the writ petition and decide as to whether it is factually correct. It is made clear that even if it is found that the averment of the petitioner is factually correct, granting of consequential benefit shall not result in displacement of anybody now in service and it is made clear that if such a situation arises, it will be open to the respondents to decline consequential benefits to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg