IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1532 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30239/2003 Dated 30/01/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.L.SAJIMON.S/O.LAXMANAN,AGED 45 YEARS ARMED RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, KOTTAYAM, 'SAJIHBAVAN'.KUNNATHU PUTHENPURAXKAL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.C.BINOY,SECRETARY (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN) KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATTOM,. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 1532/2010 ================== Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining of non- compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 30.1.2010 in W.P.(C).No.30239/2003. The directions read as follows; “12. For all the above reasons, I am inclined to allow the original petition. Regarding the reliefs to be granted to the petitioner the petitioner relies on the decision in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) of the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court ultimately directed that the aggregate of the original marks in the written examination scored by the candidate who approached to court be adopted for the purpose of including his name in the rank list and the petitioner's entitlement for appointment should be decided accordingly. I am inclined to adopt the same course of action in this case. Accordingly I direct the PSC to decide the question of inclusion of the petitioner in the rank list prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks scored by him, in the written examination by taking the original marks awarded to him the physical efficiency test and interview and include his name in the rank list in accordance with the total marks so scored by him. If any person below the rank to be assigned to the petitioner has been given appointment, the petitioner shall be adviced and given appointment in the next arising vacancy. However none of the persons already advised and appointed shall be disturbed for accommodating the petitioner and the petitioner's appointment shall not affect their seniority also.” 2. On 13.1.2011 I passed the following interim order: “The learned counsel for PSC hands over a copy of the addendum notification dated 05.01.2011 by which the petitioner has been included provisionally under category III in the ranked list published on 31.01.2003 for the post of Sub Inspector of Police Training (General Execution Branch) in Police Department by assigning rank number 2 A in between rank numbers 2 and 3, which according to the standing counsel is in compliance with Annexure A1 judgment. He submits that such inclusion has been made provisional only because the writ appeal filed against the judgment is pending and there is an interim order in that writ appeal that further action taken pursuant to the judgment would be subject to the result of the writ appeal. The learned counsel for PSC shall hand over a copy of the addendum notification to the counsel for the petitioner who shall get instructions from the party. c.o.c.1532/10 2 Post after two weeks.” Today, the learned standing counsel for the PSC hands over a copy of the letter issued to the petitioner informing him that he has already been advised for recruitment as Sub Inspector of Police subject to the result of W.A.No.892/2010 filed against the judgment. This is recorded and the contempt case is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge