IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 38757 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SREEKUMAR.S., S/O.N.SREEDHARAN, VALLIYAZHIKATHU, AITHOTTUVA, WEST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 500. 2. R.SANTHOSH, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, THEKKUNIVADAKKATHIL, PUTHUKKAD P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM-691 001. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 3. SHAJI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SHAJI NIVAS, BHARATHANNUR PO, TRIVANDRUM. 4. RAJESH.S., S/O.SREEDHARAN, RETNAMMAVILASOM, KEEZHAVOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 5. RAJ KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANA BHAVAN, KOLLAM DIST. 6. DEEPAK, S/O.SADASIVAN, KEERTHI NIVAS, EZHUKON, KOLLAM DIST. 7. BIJU KUMAR, S/O.CHRISTUDAS, GRAEVILLA, MUKKAM PALAVILA, TRIVANDRUM. 8. DIPU.K., S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, JALAJA MANDIRAM, NETTAYAM P.O., KOLLAM. 9. P.PRAMOD, S/O.PAULOSE, VLAKTHIVILA, IRUPIL, NAYYATTINKARA. (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.2857/11 DTD.22.2.11) ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).No.38758/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.38757, 38758, 38763 of 2010 & 649 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the petitioners are persons whose applications for the post of driver in various departments in Kollam district were proposed to be rejected on the ground that they have shown wrong category number in their applications. In view of the subsequent developments, details of their applications etc. are not now relevant and therefore I am not narrating the same. 2. On 2.2.2011, I passed the following interim order in these cases; “In these writ petitions the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission submits that as per the directions of this court the cases of the petitioners have been considered and it has been decided to admit their applications subject to other eligibility conditions. But the question has been raised as to what should be done in respect of advices already made from the list. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that such advices also have to be reviewed insofar as those advices were made subsequent to filing of the writ petition. The learned standing counsel for the P.S.C. submits that this court has consistently held that advices made during the pendency of the writ petitions cannot be interfered with. For consideration of that question post on next week. By that time the P.S.C. shall place appropriate pleadings on record in respect of the matter. In the meantime no advice shall be made.” 3. The learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission now submits that although an advice list was prepared before the said decision to consider the applications of the petitioners also was taken, now in view of the subsequent decision to consider w.p.c.38757/10 etc. 2 them also, it has been decided to revise the advice list already prepared and candidates will be advised as per the revised list and not as per the list already prepared before considering the petitioners' candidature. This is recorded and the writ petitions are closed. However, this will not stand in the way of respondents 3 to 9 in W.P. (C). No.38757/2010 in challenging the decision of the Public Service Commission appropriately. But I hasten to add that I have not considered their contentions on merits. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge