IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 18424 of 2008(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. INDULEKHA B.S , AGE 33 YEARS, W/O. K.S.PRADEEP, INDU NIVAS, VALATHANGAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUJAMOL.M.,AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.BABURAJ.S, MELTHRANGOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKKAL P.O.,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOLLAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI FOR R4, ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, FOR R1 TO R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 18763/ 2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.18424,18763,18916,19536, 20204,20269&25692/08 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The issue raised in these writ petitions is regarding sustainability of the claim of the petitioners for publication of additional rank lists for the post of HSA(English). 2. It is stated that, on 26.4.2002, a common notification was issued by the PSC for filling up the post of HSA (English)in all the Districts in the State. Written tests were held on 21.10.2004 and shortlists were published sometime in early 2005. In so far as these writ petitions are concerned, petitioners are candidates who participated in the selection process for Kollam, Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts and ranked lists were published on 20.9.2005,21.10.2005, 8.6.2005 and WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 2 30.8.2005 respectively. Similarly, rank lists were also published in so far as the other Districts in the State are concerned. 3. During 2005, several writ petitions were filed before this court seeking orders for publication of additional ranked lists, for 8 Districts, other than the aforesaid four Districts and Pathanamthitta and Idukki Districts. These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Ajayan V. Sate of Kerala (2006(3)KLT 854). The Public Service Commission challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Apex Court by filing special leave petitions which were dismissed by order dated 26.3.2008, on the ground that it was not maintainable as PSC had no locus standi in the matter. It is stated that, implementing the said judgment, shortlists for 8 districts covered by the judgment reported in Ajayan's case were published and the steps for the publication of the additional ranked lists have been taken. WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 3 4. Though the judgment reported in Ajayan's case was rendered in writ petitions filed in 2005, these present writ petitions concerning Kollam, Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts were filed in July, August and September 2008 and relief similar to what was granted in Ajayan's case is prayed for. 5. The contention raised is that, the petitioners being candidates similarly situated like the petitioners who filed the earlier batch of writ petitions should also get the benefit of the judgment in Ajayan's case and that the PSC should publish additional ranked lists concerning these districts as well. Counsel for the petitioners claim parity in treatment relying on the judgments reported in State of Karnataka & Ors V. C. Lalitha (2006(1) Supreme Today 640), Somukuttan Nair V. State of Kerala (1997(1)KLT 6901) and K.T. Veerappa & Ors V. State of Karnataka and Ors.(2006(9) SCC 406). WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 4 6. The standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that though the SLP filed against the judgment in Ajayan's case supra was dismissed, review petition filed before the Apex Court is pending and that pending consideration of the review, the judgment has been implemented in so far as the 8 districts covered by the judgment are concerned. It is stated that, in so far as other Districts are concerned, no direction has been issued by this court and they have not implemented the judgment. It is stated that fresh notification has been issued for preparation of ranked lists. It is contended that the petitioners herein are guilty of delay and laches and that even for claiming the benefit of the judgment, the conduct of the party concerned is relevant. They are also heavily relying on the judgment in Ajayan's case, where it has been held as follows; "Those who have not challenged the list so far, even if similarly placed, will not be entitled to the WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 5 benefits as they have slept over the matter for years." 7. It is contended that in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, though the final ranked lists were published way back in 2005, they have slept over their rights and approached this court belatedly, only in July, August and September, 2008. According to the PSC for this reason itself, petitioners have rendered themselves disentitled to any relief in this writ petition. 8. Public Service Commission would also invite my attention to the judgment in WP(c).No.20521/2005, filed by candidates from the Kozhikode District, which was dismissed by this Court. It is pointed out that this judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1738/2008, though on the ground of delay. Counsel for the PSC also referred to me, the judgment of the Full Bench reported in Sathydevan V. PSC (2008(1) KLT 289), where the Full Bench has confined the relief granted only to the parties to WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 6 the judgment. On this basis, PSC prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 9. As already noticed, the judgment reported in Ajayan's case was rendered by this court on 13.6.2006 in writ petitions which were filed in 2005. Admittedly, the petitioners herein have approached this court only in July, August and September, 2008. The question is whether by reason of the delay in filing the writ petitions and asserting their rights, the petitioners have rendered themselves disentitled to the relief sought for. 10. In my view, answer has in the judgment in Ajayan's case itself by which the earlier round of litigations were disposed of. In that judgment it has been held that those who have not challenged the lists so far, will not be entitled to the benefits as they have slept over the matter for years. 11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners wanted me to understand this finding of the Division Bench WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 7 as one applying to the two Homeo Medical Officers' writ petitions which were also considered along with the writ petitions filed by candidates for HSA post. I am not in a position to restrict the impact of the aforesaid findings in the manner as canvassed by the counsel for the writ petitioners. There cannot be a different law of limitation or delay or laches for Homeo Medical Officers. 12. Even for claiming the benefit of a judgment, the conduct of the party is relevant and if claim is raised is belatedly, Court will decline relief. This has been accepted by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in U.P. Jal Nigam & Another V. Jaswant Singh & another(2006 (11)SCC 464) and A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd. State of Kerala (2007(2)SCC 725). These judgments were followed by a Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala V. Thirumeni(2007(4)KLT 938). In fact that is also a case where the benefit of previous judgments were declined on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 8 though the petitioners are similarly situated to the beneficiaries of the judgment reported in Ajayan's case, by reason of delay itself they have rendered themselves ineligible for the benefits thereof. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment reported in State of Karnataka & Ors V. C. Lalitha (2006(1) Supreme Today 640) and claimed that if relief has been granted in respect of a similarly situated person, the same should be extended to all other persons. A reading of the judgment shows that, it was rendered in a case where the seniority was restored to a person, following a judgment, while the same benefit was declined to similarly situated persons. It is clear that if seniority is revised following a judgment, all those who are included in the seniority list are also eligible for the benefits thereof. In this case, the law laid down by the Apex court in the aforesaid judgment can have no relevance especially since separate ranked lists have been published for each Districts. WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 9 In so far as the decision reported in Somukuttan Nair V. State of Kerala(1997(1) KLT 601) is concerned, this court only reiterated the settled legal position that once a general declaration of law is made the same has to be applied uniformly to all. When appreciated in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court that even for claiming the benefit of the judgment, the conduct of the party is relevant, I am not in a position to apply the aforesaid judgment to the facts of these cases at this distance of time and hold that the petitioners are entitled to the relief in this writ petition. In my view, the petitioners are guilty of delay and laches and therefore they are not entitled to relief sought for. The position canvassed by the standing counsel for the PSC is supported by the Full Bench decision reported in Sathydevan V. PSC(2008(1)KLT 289). Counsel for the petitioners contended that unless prejudice is caused, delay or laches cannot result in denial of relief to them. I am not impressed by this submission. WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 10 Once the lists were exhausted PSC has already issued notification for preparing fresh ranked list. If additional ranked lists are ordered to be published, necessarily there will be reduction in vacancies available to those who are offering their candidature in response to the notification and these candidates are certainly prejudiced. On an over all consideration of the facts, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.18424/2008 & Ors. 11