IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1173 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENTR IN WPC.18916/2008 Dated 16/10/2008 APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS 1. R.S.PRIYA, AGE 35 YEARS, W/O. RAJKUMAR, SREE RADHA, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O.,VIA NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. REENA.A, KADAYIL VEEDU, RATHIKKAL, VETTOOR P.O.,VARKALA. 3. PREETHA.S.S.,PAYITHALA VEEDU, AMACHAL P.O., KATTAKKADA. 4. RESHMI KRISHNAN .G.S, RAJESH BHAVAN, RASSAL PURAM P.O. BALARAMAPURAM. 5. SUNITHA MOHAN, W/O.SHIJU.S.M.,PONNAMMA VILASAM, VELLALLUR P.O., KILIMANOOR(VIA),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. HILDA.S., W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, SUHIL, PUNNAMOOD, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. PREETHAKUMARI.J., PACHAYIL VEEDU, MOOTHALA (P.O), PALLICKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. SHERLY.J.J., T.C.NO.18/407,SHERLY BHAVAN, PUNNAKKAMUGAL, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-32. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL, P.S.C R1-R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU-R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1173 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were persons included in the supplementary rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of HSA(English) in Thiruvananthapuram District. The main list was published on 20.9.2005. The petitioners submitted that since there were only 113 candidates in the main list, the same exhausted soon after its publication. Once the main list got exhausted, the supplementary list cannot be operated, it is submitted. According to the appellants, if there were sufficient number of candidates in the main list, they stood a chance of being advised and appointed. So, praying that sufficient number of additional candidates may be included in the main list, this Writ Petition was filed. Relying on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala, 2006(3) W.A. N O. 1173/2009 2 K.L.T. 854, the writ petitioners claimed reliefs. The learned Single Judge noted that the rank list was published in 2005 and that it was long after the exhaustion of the said list that the petitioners moved this Court seeking reliefs. Therefore, they were guilty of delay and laches. The learned Single Judge also relied on the observation of this Court in Ajayan's Case (supra) concerning the grant of relief only to the persons who had approached the Court in time. The Division Bench held that the persons who did not approach the Court in time were not entitled to get any relief. Following that reasoning, the learned Single Judge declined reliefs to the appellants/petitioners for not approaching this Court in time. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the above judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. When the Writ Petition is dismissed, noticing the delay and laches from the part of the appellants, the Appellate Court can interfere, if only it is shown that the exercise of discretion by the learned Judge is arbitrary or perverse. We notice that a plausible view has been taken by the learned Single Judge on the facts of the case. Further, the reasoning of the Division Bench in Ajayan's Case was also followed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellants/writ W.A. N O. 1173/2009 3 petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs by reason of delay and laches from their part. Therefore, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. N O. 1173/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1173/2009 JUDGMENT 6th July, 2009 W.A. N O. 1173/2009 5