IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10555 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BIJI MOL.D., D/O.X.DEVAN, PUTHUVEL PURAYIDAM, CHEMBAKASSERY NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D., ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHYNA.K.R., CHAITHRAM, 5/1557, IRANJIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10555/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD/Irrigation Department and was included in the supplementary rank list for Latin Catholics. Six persons were appointed following the rule of reservation, from the supplementary rank list of Latin Catholic. According to the petitioner, if the rank list is further enforced, further candidates from the LC would be advised. But this was not done by the PSC on the premise that the remaining vacancies are set apart for compensating the backlog vacancies of ST candidates and since ST candidates were not available, compensation has been given to SC candidates. Apparently, this compensatory process has been undertaken for the period from 1981-02 and the backlog which arose about 27 years ago is now sought to be discharged from the vacancies reported during the currency of Ext.P1 rank list. This is essentially challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).10555/2008 2 Specific contention taken by the petitioner in this regard in relation to the same rank list, was dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No.16557/2007 and was rejected. The judgment was affirmed in Writ Appeal 2420/2007. It seems that an application for review filed before the Division Bench was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compensating backlog vacancies, the maximum percentage of vacancies that can be filled up by reservation would exceed 50% and this is therefore, impermissible under any other rule. I have called for the Judge’s papers in Writ Petition No.16557/2007 and Writ Appeal No.2420/2007. I find that such a specific contention was taken up in the said writ petition. Nevertheless, the writ petition was dismissed. Even otherwise I am of the view that the said contention may not stand in the light of the Constitutional Amendment to Article 16, resulting in the introduction of Sub clause (4-B) of the Constitution of W.P.(C).10555/2008 3 India, which reads as follows: Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4-A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. So also the proviso to Rule 15(d) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R, which reads as follows:- Reservation to a category of posts shall not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which selection is resorted to in a selection year: provided that the 50% ceiling to W.P.(C).10555/2008 4 reservation specified above shall not apply to the filling up of any number of reserved vacancies kept unfilled and notified separately as per sub-rule (a) of rule 15 to be filled exclusively by direct recruitment from among a community or group of communities: provided further that such class of vacancies to be filled up in that year or in any succeeding year or years shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of 50% of the total number of vacancies of that year. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the writ petition is bereft of merit and hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs