IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 10288 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SATHEESH CHANDRAN.A, SIVA NIVAS, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOLLAM. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10288 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is presently a Head Constable. In response to the notification issued by the PSC, he applied for the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II. In Ext.P3 ranked list published, he was included at Rank No.9 in the direct recruitment quota and Rank No.1 in the by transfer category. By Ext.P4, petitioner was advised for appointment under the direct recruitment quota. Thereupon, he states that he made Ext.P5 representation requesting the PSC to advise him in the by transfer category as otherwise petitioner realised that he will be incurring financial loss. To this, he got Ext.P6 reply stating that in view of Ext.P4 advise, he has been removed from the ranked list on the basis of Rule 18(iii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the respondents to retain the name of the petitioner in the ranked list in the category of recruitment by transfer in Ext.P3 ranked list. Rule 18(iii) of the PSC Procedure Rules reads as under: 18(iii)A candidate whose name has been included in more than one Ranked List for the same post in the WPC No. 10288/10 :2 : Same department/Various departments finalized on the basis of the very same notification under different methods of recruitments/appointments and when such a candidate is advised by the Commission for recruitment from anyone of the aforesaid Ranked Lists, his name shall be removed from the other Ranked List/Lists. 2. There is no challenge to this Rule. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 show that it was under the very same notification the applications were invited, though for different methods of recruitment. If that be so, by force of Rule 18(iii), once a person is appointed to one of the categories, he is liable to be removed from the other category. If that be the case, petitioner's name could not have been retained in the ranked list once he was advised by Ext.P4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was the only candidate included in the by transfer category, once he is removed from the list, it will not be possible for the PSC to maintain the ratio. Since under Rule 18(iii) and in view of Ext.P4, petitioner was liable to have been removed from the ranked list, it is upto the PSC to do the needful for maintaining WPC No. 10288/10 :3 : ratio, but that does not however mean that inspite of Rule 18(iii), the petitioner's name should be retained in the list. I see nothing objectionable in Ext.P6. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp