IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 350 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31624/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): WRIT PETITIONER ----------------------------- 1. DR.K.S.SHAIK ANWAR, KOPPILLY HOUSE, ANSAR LANE, ALUVA,ERNAKULAM. 2. DR.SUBI.N.H.,NOORAMKULANGARA HOUSE, PUTHENPALLI POST, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR - 680103. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCAITON DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU ADV.SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C., KPSC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.350 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were candidates, who applied for the post of Tutor (Rog Nidhana), pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Public Service Commission(for short, 'PSC'), on 17.7.2006. When the selection process was going on, the Government issued Ext.P6 Special Rules, governing appointment to various categories of posts in the Kerala State Ayurveda Medical Education(Teaching) Service. As per the said Special Rules, there is no category of Tutor, but instead, the lowest category among the teaching posts is, Lecturer. The qualification prescribed for the said post is, Post Graduate Degree in the concerned subject. In the absence of persons with the said qualification, persons with Graduation can be considered. Ext.P6 Special Rules were published on 4.8.2007. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the PSC published the rank list on 28.7.2009, as per Ext.P2. To the one vacancy notified as per Ext.P1, the PSC advised a candidate from Ext.P2 list, on 14.9.2009. The Government took the post of Lecturer, as the re- WA NO.350/20 2 designated post of Tutor and accordingly, the said candidate was appointed as Lecturer, as evident from Ext.P4, on 26.9.2009. Later, the competent authority reported two vacancies of Lecturers (Rog Nidhana), as per Ext.P5 requisition to the PSC, on 30.4.2009. Since the PSC did not advise candidates to those vacancies from Ext.P2 rank list, the Writ Petition was filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, seeking the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus, writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to advise candidates from the existing ranked list to the vacancies reporting to it during the currency of the ranked list; (ii) declare that since the petitioners are candidates included in the ranked list and that there is no post graduates in the concerned subject in the ranked list, the ranked list is one to be operated by advising candidates based on merit from the existing ranked list; (iii) declare that the Commission is duty bound to advise candidates from the present ranked list to the vacancies reported to it during the currency of the ranked list and also that the petitioners are also entitled to get the treatment given to the first rank holder, Smt.Vidya Menon.” 2. The PSC took the stand that in view of the promulgation of Ext.P6 Special Rules, advice to those two WA NO.350/20 3 vacancies can be made, only after preparing a fresh rank list. The appellants/petitioners contended that advice to those two vacancies should be made from Ext.P2 rank list. According to them, Ext.P2 rank list can be operated, as the candidates included in it have, at least Graduation in the concerned subject. A Graduate in the concerned subject is also qualified, as per Ext.P6, for appointment, it was submitted. It is not a case of the persons included in Ext.P2 list being unqualified for appointment, owing to the introduction of the new Special Rules and therefore, the stand of the PSC is unjustified, it was pointed out. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the view taken by the PSC, and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 3. The learned counsel, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, who appeared for the appellants, submitted that Graduates are also qualified for appointment, as per Ext.P6 and therefore, there is no reason why Ext.P2 cannot be operated for filling up the vacancies, presently reported as per Ext.P5. 4. We notice that the vacancies presently reported are in the post of Lecturer (Rog Nidhana). The qualifications and WA NO.350/20 4 method of appointment to that post, on the date of requisition, are governed by Ext.P6 Special Rules. So, the PSC has to prepare a rank list, containing two parts; part I, which includes candidates, having Post Graduate Degree and if there are not sufficient candidates having Post Graduate Degree, part II, which includes candidates having Graduation only. In view of the said obligation of the PSC, in the light of the newly introduced Special Rules, if it takes the view that the list published earlier cannot be operated for filling up the vacancies now reported, the same cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Since the vacancies admittedly arose after the issuance of Ext.P6, they can be filled up, only in accordance with Ext.P6. So, we find no reason to interfere with the stand taken by the PSC. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs WA NO.350/20 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.350 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 8th March, 2010.