IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 15320 of 2004(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SALU MATHEW, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI), GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VECHOOCHIRA COLONY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THOLANICKAL HOUSE, KOLLAMULA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 510. BY ADV. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI R1 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 15320/2004-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15320 of 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated 25th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission and Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Director of Higher Secondary Education. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Hindi). The notification inviting applications was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 18.12.2001. A short list of candidates was published after written test on 15.3.2004. The short list contained the names of 104 candidates consisting of 69 candidates in the main list and 35 in the supplementary lists. The ranked list was also published thereafter on 26.6.2004. The ranked list ceased to be in force on 26.6.2007. This writ petition was filed on 21.5.2004 shortly after the short list was published contending that adequate number of candidates have not been included therein. It is also contended that the Kerala Public Service Commission has fixed 65% marks as cut off marks for candidates who have applied for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Hindi), whereas the WP(C).No.15320/2004 2 cut off marks fixed for other categories of teaching posts were lower. 3. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit stating that when the notification inviting applications was issued, the vacancies had not been estimated, that by the time the short list was prepared 35 vacancies were reported to the Commission and based on that a short list of 104 candidates corresponding to three times the number of vacancies reported to the Commission was prepared . The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that before the short list was published, 35 vacancies had been reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission 4. A Full Bench of this Court has in W.P.(C)No.11916 of 2005 and connected cases held that the Kerala Public Service Commission is not bound to prepare a short list or rank list, which is large enough to take care of vacancies arising during the currency of rank list. In Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana & others ((1985) 4 SCC 417) the Apex Court has held that the maximum number of candidates to be short listed for the purpose of interview can only be 2-3 times the number of vacancies. I am therefore of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the short list prepared by the Commission in the instant case did not contain adequate number of candidates. Further, the Full Bench has WP(C).No.15320/2004 3 held that the Commission does not prescribe cut off marks and what is drescribed as cut off marks is the marks secured by the last candidate included in the main list/supplementary lists which is published for the purpose of dissemination of information and to ensure transparency. I am therefore not persuaded to agree with the petitioner that adequate number of candidates were not included in the short list or the ranked list published by the Commission. Further, the ranked list ceased to be in force on 26.6.2007. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted and a larger short list is directed to be published, it will affect the persons already advised from the expired rank list resulting in a total rearrangement of the appointments already made. No one of the candidates who have been selected and appointed are on the party array either individually or in a representative capacity. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS