IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29143 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.P.MOHAMMED MUNEER, RAHMA MANZIL T.C.ROAD,TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI MUHAMOOD T.T. SHRI ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, P.S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.29143/2009-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein applied to the post of Tutor in Pharmacy in the Government Homoeopathy Medical College pursuant to Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the copy of the ranked list and the petitioner was included as rank No.1 in the supplementary list of Muslims. This evident from page (1) of Ext.P2. It is the case of the petitioner that from Ext.P2 ranked list only two candidates were advised by the P.S.C and they were appointed also. 2. It is submitted that going by the notification dated 11/09/2002, the Central Council of Homoeopathy has framed certain regulations wherein the pattern of teaching post is shown as Professor, Reader and Lecturer. Tutor is not shown therein. Before the issuance of the said regulation, the Government had issued Special Rules wherein the post of Tutor was included. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier seeking for various directions including reporting of vacancies by filing W.P.(C). No.4186/2007. The ranked list Ext.P2 which came into force on 29/11/2005 expired in the meanwhile, therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by Ext.P8 judgment dated 30/07/2009. W.P.(C). No.29143/2009 -:2:- 3. Presently, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order Ext.P9 whereby the Government decided to revive the Tutor posts with immediate effect. Accordingly, sanction is accorded for the revival of 12 posts of Tutors as detailed in the said order itself. The order is dated 17/07/2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a reading of Ext.P7 statement filed by the second respondent before this Court in W.P. (C).No.4186/2007, especially paragraph (2) shows that at that point of time, the Government was of the view that no new post of Tutor hereafter will be created or filled, as Tutor post has already been declared as vanishing category. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P9 has been issued with mala fide reasons also to defeat the rights of persons like the petitioner. 5. Apparently, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to revive the ranked list Ext.P2 so as to make appointments in the Tutor posts from among the persons included in the ranked list. 6. It is settled by various decisions of this Court that once the ranked list has expired, the candidates included therein will not have any right if at all to consider them against the vacancies which were not reported during the currency of the ranked list. True that going by Ext.P9 the Government has decided to revive 12 posts of Tutors, therefore, the W.P.(C). No.29143/2009 -:3:- contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it really goes against the averments contained in the statement cannot be discarded. But the authority of the Government to pass such an order has to be conceded. Even then, since the ranked list has expired long back, namely, November 2008 and as none of the vacancies included in Ext.P9 were reported prior to the expiry of the ranked list, the petitioner cannot at this stage seek for a direction to extend the period of Ext.P2 ranked list to effect appointments in the 12 posts revived as per Ext.P9. 7. Taking into consideration the above legal aspects, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms