IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21922 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANITHA M.N, W/O.V.B.MUKUNDAN PALAKKATTU HOUSE, RAJAGIRI VALLEY PO KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 039 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR OF PORTS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21922 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T In response to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of LD Clerk in various departments of the Government, the petitioner applied and was included in Ext.P1 ranked list for Ernakulam District. Now by Ext.P2, the petitioner has been advised to the Ports Department. By Ext.P3 proceedings of the Director of Ports, the petitioner has been appointed at the Headquarters vacancy at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner thereupon sought extension of time for joining which has been granted till 21.7.2010. The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to cancel Ext.P2 advice memo and also to give a posting to the petitioner in any other Department having LDC post in Ernakulam District. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that previously four candidates advised by the PSC were posted in the Ports Department and they avoided the posting and it was therefore that the petitioner happened to be advised. The further contention raised is that the Ports Department WPC No.21922/2010 2 has no LDC post in Ernakulam District and therefore the petitioner who is having the right to get posting back in the District of her choice will not be able to avail of the said benefit, if she joins duty in pursuance to Exts.P2 and P3. 3. As far as the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, the persons who have allegedly advised for appointment to the Ports Department did not report for duty in pursuance to appointment against Headquarter vacancy are not impleaded in the writ petition nor has the petitioner at least disclosed the details of such persons. If this contention is to be accepted, this Court will have to interfere with the action of the respondents in relieving the four persons from joining the post and as a consequence thereof, these persons will naturally be affected by such order. In the absence of those persons in the party array, this Court cannot pronounce on the correctness of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. In so far as the second contention that in the absence of any vacancy in Ernakulam District in the Ports Department, the petitioner could not have been advised against the Headquarter WPC No.21922/2010 3 vacancy. There is no rule preventing the authorities from advising the candidates even in the absence of vacancy in the District concerned. At best, the consequence can only be that the petitioner may not be able to get inter district/inter departmental transfer to Ernakulam District. However that will not render the advice or appointment illegal. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.21922/2010 4 WPC No.21922/2010 5