IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1163 of 2006(S) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1030/2005 Dated 18/11/2005 .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SALEELA PANKAJAM, D/O. PANKAJAKSHAN , AGED 40 YEARS, ANCHIL CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ANAPARAMBIL NORTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. P.SIVAJADAS, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADANA GOPALAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT OFFICER, P.S.C.DISTRICT OFFICE, GOWRI SADANAM, THENDAKULANGARA, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 013. 3. SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI S., W/O.RAJENDRAN R., AGED 51, DIRECTOR OF HOMOEOPATHY, (DELETED) NEAR PAZHAVANGADI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VISWAS MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 48, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, (DELETED) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (J) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY \ AS PER ORDR DATED 8/10/2007 IN COC.1163/2006. R1 & R2 - BY S.C. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.C. No. 1163 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant in W.A.No.1030/2005 has filed this Contempt of Court Case under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the respondents had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions contained in the judgment. 2. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeal had directed thus: “The respondents shall issue appropriate orders for advice and appointment of the appellant and petitioners to the vacant posts which were available before the expiry of the respective rank lists expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment” 3. It is on record that initially five vacancies were reported by the appointing authority. It is yet again beyond controversy that later three more vacancies were reported by the appointing authority. Thus all the eight available vacancies were reported. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that going by the communal rotation, she ought to have been advised for appointment by the Kerala Public Service Commission in one of the three vacancies reported subsequently. COC.1163/2006. 2 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, the above contention is disputed and denied. In paragraph 4c which relates to the three vacancies, it is stated by the Commission thus: “4c. Three vacancies occurred on 1/7/2000, 1/1/2001 & 1/5/2002 reported on 10/9/2007. MRI 10 OBC (TPO satisfied) not advised since the OBC turn which arises is not that of a party to the Division Bench judgment. MRI 12 SC ( TPO satisfied Chandramathy M(rank one Suppl. list SC (petitioner in W.P. (C) 15587/05) now advised on 15/2/2008. MRI 12 OC Not advised since the candidate whose turn arises is not a party to the Division Bench judgment.” It is further stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit thus: “5. Thus it is most respectfully submitted that it can be seen that the turn of Salila Pankajam, the contempt petitioner, does not arise even though all available vacancies are COC.1163/2006. 3 taken into consideration. It is thus most humbly submitted that there is no contempt of court involved in the actions of the Service Commission and the service Commission have fully complied with the Division Bench judgment and the modified order dt. 8/3/2006 in IA.14/06 in WA.103005, eventhough it is not considered legally correct, in the light of the Full Bench decision reported in 1994 (2) KLT 47 and the Division Bench judgment in 1994 (1) KLT 490 etc. In sofar as the turn of Salila Pankajam (Rank 13) does not arise against the available vacancies before the expiry of the ranked list the benefit of advise cannot be extended to her.” 6. In response to the above contentions raised by the Commission, the petitioner in her reply affidavit has contended that the vacancy in relation to turn MRI 14 was at any rate liable to be given to her. 7. But learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has invited our attention to Annexure A3 rank list produced by the petitioner. In the said list petitioner appears at rank No.13. She is an Ezhava candidate. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel, two other Ezhava candidates placed at rank Nos.3 and 11 are placed above the petitioner and even assuming the next turn should go to an Ezhava candidate, petitioner could not have aspired for COC.1163/2006. 4 advice and appointment. It is true that petitioner has got a contention that rank No.3 had already been appointed. Even then , the candidate placed at rank No.11 stands above her in the list. 7. Having considered the entire materials available on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties. we do not find any reason to entertain this Contempt of Court Case. Contempt of Court Case is therefore dismissed. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER an. Judge