IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 1062 of 2009(J) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2611/2005 Dated 03/10/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJITH K., "MAYAS", EZHAKKAD P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. YESUDAS P.P., PALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O., VELUR, THRISSUR. 3. SANTHOSH A.G., SREEVIHAR, T.C NO. 118, SWATHI NAGAR, PIPINMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & 14TH PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELPEMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, L.M.S COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. * 5. SUDHARMAN, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, KOLLAM, KERALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTEXTENSION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. (DELETED) *DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ORDER DTD. 13.12.2010 IN IA. 707/2010. R.P. NO.1062/2009 6. K.GOPALAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VAMANAPURAM BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. K.K.SASI, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, EXTENSION OFFICER, KODARA BLOCK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 8. K.A.PAREED PILLA, S/O.LATE K.K.ABDUL- RAHIMAN, EXTENSION OFFICER (IRD), VAZHAKULAM BLOCK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. P.K.PATHROSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, EXTENSION OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM BLOCK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. P.P.RAJAGOPALAN, EXTENSION OFFICER (IRD) MAVELIKKARA BLOCK, ALAPPUZHA. 11. RADHAKRISHNAN R, BHADRADEEPAM, TC NO.41/1259 (1), KUTIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R6 TO R10 BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.1062 of 2009 in W.P.(C)No. 2611 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 O R D E R This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment of a learned Judge of this court which reads as follows: “The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to appointment to the post of Block Development Officers in the Department of Rural Development. The ranked list published by the Public Service Commission expired on 14.4.2005. However it is seen that prior to the expiry of the ranked list, pursuant to the interim orders issued by this Court, 28 vacancies had already been reported with a rider not to advise the candidates without orders from the court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the vacancy position can be assessed only based on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court with regard to the ratio. Now that the Full Bench has settled the law and the ratio has to be worked out as against the cadre strength. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent- Commissioner for Rural Development to work out the actual substantive vacancies available for direct recruitment as on the date of expiry of the ranked list in the light of the Full Bench decision referred to above. If any of the petitioners seeks an opportunity for hearing before the 2nd respondent in that regard, the same shall also be granted. The assessment as above shall be made, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by either party. Depending on the outcome of the assessment as above, the matter shall be reported to the Public Service Commission and the Commission depending on the report of the 2nd respondent will take action in the matter of advice of the vacancies already reported pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, within another one month. R.P. No.1062 of 2009 in W.P.(C)No. 2611 of 2005 -2- The writ petition is disposed of as above.” The contention of the petitioners is that the decision was rendered relying on the decision of the Full Bench in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy (2006 (3) KLT 641 (F.B.). According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the said Full Bench decision is not applicable to the facts of this case and what is applicable is Ext.P1 judgment, Short Notes of which has been reported in 1993 (2) KLT SN 19 Case No. 20. From the judgment as well as the pleadings in the writ petition, I am satisfied that the question involved is as to whether vacancies arising after the amendment of the Special Rules should be filled up from the rank list already prepared in accordance with the unamended Special Rules. That issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy (2006 (3) KLT 641 (F.B.). Therefore I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners that the decision of the Full Bench has been wrongly applied in R.P. No.1062 of 2009 in W.P.(C)No. 2611 of 2005 -3- the judgment sought to be reviewed. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/