IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 25310 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RADHA K.R., AGED 42 YEARS, W/O NARAYANAN K.K,KAIPPILLY HOUSE, ARIMPUR P.O., THRISSUR 680620 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S.C. OFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25310 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the 4th respondent to fill up the remaining two vacancies already reported adhering to the principle of communal rotation from Ext.P1 rank list itself. 2. Ext.P1 is the rank list prepared and published by the 4th respondent for the post of HSA (Malayalam). It is not in dispute that 14 vacancies were reported and that only 12 candidates were advised. Petitioner contends that for the remaining two vacancies, candidates are liable to be advised from Ext.P1 list and if that be so, she being No.1 in the OBC Supplementary list is entitled to be advised. 3. On the other hand, referring to Ext.P3, learned counsel for the 4th respondent tells me that the 2 remaining vacancies has been set apart for re-notification. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, though the counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the 4th respondent, he contended for the position that among the candidates advised, there is no OBC candidate and therefore communal rotation is violated. It is stated that if an OBC WPC 25310/08 :2 : candidate is advised, petitioner is liable to be advised. Though such a submission was made, petitioner could not explain at which point of the roster, the OBC turn has been overlooked. In the writ petition also, there is no plea that any particular OBC point has been overlooked. If that be so, I do not find any merit in the contention that OBC point has been overlooked and vacancies due to them have been set apart for re- notification. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp