IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1602 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22274/2011 Dated 25/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- JIMCY TONIO, MADUKKOLIL HOUSE, SANTHIGRAM.P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695 004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI-685 508, 3. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER-685 508. 4. THE IDUKKI DISTRICT TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.1-191, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-685 508. 5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI-685 508. R1 AND R2 BY SC SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.LIJU V.STEPHEN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1602 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Appellant applied to the Public Service Commission for appointment by transfer to the Idukki District Co-operative Bank while he was working in the fourth respondent, Primary Co- operative Society. However, in the course of selection process by the P.S.C, the appellant was thrown out of service from the Primary Co-operative Society and consequently, he could not produce certificate of continuous employment for inclusion in the final list. 2. The appellant's case is that he has filed arbitration case for cancellation of the dismissal order and if he succeeds, he should be given the benefit. 3. Standing Counsel for P.S.C opposed the contention stating that restoration of the appellant in service is a contingency, based on which the P.S.C cannot include the appellant in the select list. We are in complete agreement with the argument of the P.S.C. WA.1602/11 2 However, if the appellant succeeds in the arbitration case and is restored to service, then the appellant can be considered for subsequent posting, provided the list is valid and the appellant can be considered for subsequent vacancies. The Writ Appeal is disposed of by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge as above with a direction to the Arbitration Court to complete the arbitration case filed by the appellant within three months from now. The appellant will produce a copy of this judgment before the Arbitration Court for compliance. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs