IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1759 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35085/2004 Dated 10/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SHANAVAS.A.K, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, AYKYA BHAVANAM, NILAMEL.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------- 1. MR.RAJENDRAN ACHARI, AGED 52 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. MR.NOOR MUHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS FOR R2 SMT.SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNEMNT PLEADER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- C.O.C.1759/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT An additional affidavit has been filed by the second respondent on 10.3.2009. Paragraph 2 of the same reads as follows:- It is most respectfully submitted that the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam, has reported a vacancy for the post of Excise Guard, Excise Department, Kollam, on 19.2.2009 on the basis of the order dated 16.2.2009 of this Honourable Court in the above matter. In the proforma for reporting the vacancy, the date of occurrence of the vacancy is noted as 1.10.2004 and hence advice can be effected against this vacancy from the ranked list that was cancelled with effect from 4.1.2005. 2. Mr.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the vacancy now C.O.C.1759/2008 2 reported will therefore, be treated as one which has arisen during the currency of the rank list and accordingly, the said rank list will be operated only for the purpose of effecting one more advice against the said vacancy noted as having arisen on 1.10.2004. In these circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to further proceed with the Contempt of Court case. It is accordingly closed. But I make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of appropriate remedies being pursued by the petitioner in relation to the operation of the rank list or for any other reliefs which may become necessary in future. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs