IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 1293 of 2004(D) PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH RAJAN K.J. AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. K.V.JOSEPH, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.JOICE GEORGE SRI.P.K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICER, IDUKKI, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI. 3. SREEKUMAR, SREE BHAVANAM, THENGUMKODU, K.T.KUNNU P.O., KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GIRIJADEVI K., AJAYA BHAVANAM, NEDUMKANDOM P.O. * 5. AMBILY A.S.,EDAPPATTU HOUSE, KIRIKODU P.O., THODUPUZHA (DELETED) 6. PRASANNAKUMARI K.C., W/O.MOHANAN K.K., KIZHAKKE MURIYIL HOUSE, EDAVETTY P.O., THODUPUZHA. 7. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AMIMAL HUSBANDARY VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN I.A.8430/04 DATED 12.7.04) ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,STANDING COUNSEL,KPSC -R1&2 SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL FOR R3,4 & 6 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.DEEPA-R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.1293 OF 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the relevant extract of the PSC bulletin dt. 1.1.1998. Ext.P2: True copy of the notice dt. 5.10.2002 by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P3: True copy of the letter dt. 20.11.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P4: True copy of relevant extract of rank list published by the respondents. RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1293 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and was the 4th rank holder in the P.S.C. list published on 30.12.2002, in the sub-category for Ex-servicemen for appointment to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II in Idukki District. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 7 to take necessary steps to appoint the petitioner as Livestock Inspector Grade-II on the basis of exhibit P4 rank list. ii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment as Livestock Inspector Grade II in Idukki District as he secured 4th rank in the ex-service personnel category and already 5 vacancies are reserved for the ex-service personnel category. iii.to declare that the respondents 3 to 6 can claim the appointment of Livestock Inspector Grade II only after exhausting the rank list of ex-service personnel fully. 2. A scanning of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition would W.P.(C) No. 1293/2004 2 reveal that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the manner in which the order of priority was worked out by the Public Service Commission while effecting appointments form the sub-category of Ex- servicemen/dependents of ex-service and serving personnel. According to the petitioner, the order of priority is totally unworkable and it is illegal and that respondents 3 to 6 can claim appointment to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade II only after exhausting the rank list of ex-service personnel. The case advanced by the petitioner is squarely covered by the common judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 15874 of 2004 and 18327 of 2004. That was a case filed by similarly situated ex-service personnel. Ext.P1 therein was challenged on the ground that the order of priority indicated therein was unworkable and illegal. That was a copy of G.O. (Ms)334/99/AD dated 8.12.1999 whereby certain sub groups were also included under the 10% reservation quota earmarked for Ex-service personnel in the matter of appointment to the aforesaid post and the order of priority was re-arranged. In this context it is to be noticed that the order of priority against which the petitioner raises grievance and the order of priority assailed therein are one and the same. The said contention regarding the workability was considered by this Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment as follows: W.P.(C) No. 1293/2004 3 “9. Yet another contention raised by the petitioners is that the order or priority indicated in Ext.P1 is totally unworkable and illegal. I do not agree. As rightly pointed out by the Commission in its counter affidavit, the sub categories in question are under category No. (iv). The candidates in the ranked list were arranged in the order of priority as indicated in the order of the Government. However it is contended by the petitioners that the order of priority mentioned in Ext.P1 order does not take in cyclic rotation as understood by the Commission. According to the learned counsel order of priority means that all Ex service men should be taken as the first group in the order of priority and only after exhaustion of the entire Ex service personnel the other sub categories shall be appointed. In my view the above contention is totally unreasonable and preposterous. The order of priority as indicated in Ext.P1 has been correctly worked out by the Commission. Therefore action of the Commission cannot be faulted at all.” 3. After a careful consideration of the rival contentions, this Court found the exclusion of sub groups and re-arrangement of the order of priority among the categories under the 10% quota as valid. Further, it was found that the order of priority as indicated in Ext.P1 has been correctly worked out by the Public Service Commission. In the light of the above common judgment, the petitioner cannot now successfully challenge the order or priority either on the ground that it is totally unworkable and illegal or alleging illegality in regard to the manner in W.P.(C) No. 1293/2004 4 which it was worked out by the Public Service Commission. Moreover, the validity of the list in question had already expired. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) No. 1293/2004 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 1293/2004 JUDGMENT 7th September, 2009 W.P.(C) No. 1293/2004 6