IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 368 of 2008(B) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25416/2007 Dated 05/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. REVICHANDRAN M., MADATHIL HOUSE, MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 571. 2. AMRUTHA DEVI L., PALLICHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POLLATHAI P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 567. 3. ANILKUMAR C.R., CHANDRABHAVANAM, VILLONNI P.O., ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM-8. 4. ABIDA M., W/O. ABKAR ALI K.A., 'ABBAS', THEKKATHI BAVA STREET, PUDUNAGARAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 503. 5. CHANDRASEKHARAN C.V., CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTH, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 525. 6. RAJANI K.U., W/O.K.R.PREMAKUMAR, KUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.20/1709-A, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-682 006. W.A.NO. 368/2008 -2- 7. JAYANTHI R., W/O. SUDEVAN C., POLICE QUARTERS, KACHERIMEDU, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 101. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2,3 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA R1 BY STANIDNG COUNSEL SRI ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & M.C.Hari Rani,J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 368 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25416 of 2007 dated 5-11-2007. 2. The petitioners in the writ petition had complained that the Public Service Commission (“P.S.C.” for short) has drawn up rank list of only 54 candidates in the main list, even though there are number of vacancies in the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) in Political Science and, therefore, they had sought for a direction to the P.S.C. to draw up an expanded rank list in proportion to the number of vacancies available. Further, according to the petitioners, at least 84 vacancies were there in the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) in Political Science. 3. Before the learned single Judge, the P.S.C. had filed its counter affidavit that at the time of drawing up of the short list there were only 20 vacancies and the short list was prepared consisting of 54 candidates in the main list and 127 in the supplementary list, making a total of 181 candidates as required under the guidelines. Taking note of the counter affidavit so filed by the P.S.C., the learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. That is how, the petitioners are before us in this writ appeal. 4. Sri. N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that when 20 vacancies are available at the time of drawing up the short list, the respondents ought to have prepared a list containing 60 candidates in the main list. According to the learned Senior counsel, the action of the P.S.C. requires to be interfered with by this Court. W.A.NO. 368 OF 2008 -2- 5. The P.S.C. while preparing the short list and also the supplementary list has faithfully followed the guidelines issued by them. The guidelines so issued was not questioned either by the petitioners or any other person before any other appropriate forum. Therefore, the P.S.C. had prepared a short list containing 54 candidates in the main list and 127 in the supplementary list making a total of 181 candidates. This is in accordance with the guidelines issued by them alone. In that view of the matter, we also do not interfere with the matter. The writ appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice M.C.Hari Rani Judge ks