IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 WA.No. 1980 of 2011 ( ) ================ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.32640/2011 DATED 16-12-2011 APPELLANT(S) ========= SUNIL ROSE P.L, S/O.G.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT ROSE LAND, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S) ========== 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1980 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2011 NO.A6- 27091/2011 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1980 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. It is not in dispute that the ranking of the appellant is at serial number 802 in the rank list, which is due to expire on 31.12.2011. According to the appellant, though the second respondent herein is bound to report all available vacancies to the Public Service Commission for advice, a number of vacancies, though available, are not reported. Therefore, he has approached the Court for necessary directions. On the direction of the learned Single Judge, the learned Government Pleader came up with a clear picture of what exactly are the vacancies available and even explained the nature of vacancies that are available subsequent to happening of an event. 3. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant now that all vacancies including the WA.1980/11 2 vacancies that are likely to arise in respect of a pending litigation also to be notified cannot be accepted for the simple reason, unless and until there is finality of litigation pending, those vacancies cannot be asked to be notified as it would lead to further litigation and confusion. The reporting of vacancies for advice has to be with reference to definite vacancies, which are available and it may also include the definite vacancies that are likely to happen, but not with regard to vacancies, which are yet to be decided in a litigation. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge, after consideration of the factual situation, was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs