IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 W.A.No. 2755 of 2009 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26735/2004 Dated 05/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS:- ------------------------- 1. E.R.BIJU, ERATTAMACKAL HOUSE, KAMBILIKANDAM, P.O.MUKKUDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 562. 2. S.MANIKUTTAN, THENGUVILA MEKKE VEEDU, MANNOTTUKONAM, PAYATTUVILA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAMESH & SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.2755 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 8th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants/petitioners were candidates, who were included in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission (for short, “the P.S.C.”), for appointment in the post of Overseer Grade II in the Municipal Common Service. In implementation of Ext.P1 judgment, the P.S.C. had to advise certain candidates, who were diploma holders and who were subsequently included in the rank list, as a result of that judgment. Without implementing Ext.P1 dated 4.8.2003, the appellants herein were advised after 4.8.2003. So, their appointments were plainly against the direction contained in Ext.P1. So, in implementation of Ext.P1 they have to be terminated. Though the appellants challenged Ext.P1 before the Division Bench, that appeal was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition attempted against that judgment of the Division Bench before the Apex Court was also dismissed. Therefore, the action of the P.S.C. in terminating them and accommodating diploma holders included in the rank list, though their inclusion was after the advice of the appellants, cannot W.A.No.2755 of 2009 - 2 - be faulted. In view of the above facts, the P.S.C. was acting within jurisdiction, or rather they were bound to act in the manner they have acted in this case. Though the appellants stake their claim for accommodating them in the 22 vacancies which were reported subsequent to the expiry of the rank list, the same cannot be done as the P.S.C. has no power to advise the candidates to vacancies which were reported after expiry of the rank list, even assuming those vacancies have occurred earlier. This position was settled by the Full Bench decision this Court in Vimalakumari v. State, 1994 (2) KLT 47, relying on which the learned Single Judge repelled the claim of the appellants. In the result, we find no merit in the claim of the appellants and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK.