IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 6543 of 2002(D) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.OMANA, P.D.TEACHER, GOVT. U.P.S. ENNAKKADU, ENNAKKADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.K.S.SAIRA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.6543/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.A2.272/86 DT. 4.1.86 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT. P2: COPY OF LETTER NO.A1(3)1028/82 DT. 2.5.86 OF THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA. EXT. P3: COPY OF LETTER NO.318/86 DT. 7.6.86 OF THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. L.P.SCHOOL, THAKAZHY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P4: COPY OF LETTER NO.A2.16247/86 DT. 6.10.86 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT. 10.11.2000 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT. P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/91465/2000/DPI DATED 15.9.2001 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 6543 of 2002 (D) ======================= Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT While working as an aided school teacher, the petitioner was advised by the PSC for appointment as a PD Teacher in Government service by Ext.P1. Petitioner joined service on 21.4.1986. However, by Ext.P2 order, the Public Service Commission cancelled the advice of the petitioner on the ground that the advice was to a vacancy wrongly reported. Pursuant to that petitioner's service was terminated by Ext.P3 dated 7.6.1986. By Ext.P4, the petitioner was again advised by PSC on 11.8.1986 to another vacancy. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined service with effect from 20.10.1986. Thereafter on 10.11.2000, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Director of Public Instruction claiming that she is entitled to seniority as a PD Teacher with effect from 24.1.1986. The same was rejected by Ext.P6 order, which is O.P. No. 6543/2002/D -2- under challenge in this original petition. 2. The petitioner places reliance on the the 4th proviso to Rule 27(c) of Kerala Subordinate Service of Rules which states that the seniority of a person appointed in one service from a common selective list prepared by the commission and thereafter discharged from service for want of vacancy and got reappointed in another service or another Department/Institution of further advice of the commission, shall be determined by the date of first effective advice. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner's appointment was cancelled not because of non-availability of vacancies in the Govt.U.P.S. Thakazhy but for want of vacancies of PD teachers in Alappuzha district. But in the counter affidavit of the Public Service Commission, it is stated that petitioner's advice had been cancelled because of wrong reporting of a non joining duty vacancy as a result of which a reservation applicable was wrongly computed, pursuant to which only the petitioner was advised. Later on, it was found that the NJD vacancy was wrongly reported and therefore, the rotation had to be revised. Of course O.P. No. 6543/2002/D -3- for cancellation of advice, in Ext.P6 one reason is given, in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent another reason is given and the PSC gives still another reason. 4. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition. Not even in this original petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order by which his advice had been cancelled and Ext.P3 order by which his services were terminated. He accepted Exts. P2 and P3 and later on joined duty pursuant to Ext.P4 advice memo issued the second time. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation claiming seniority with effect from 24.1.1986 to 7.6.1986 only on 10.1.2000, 14 years after his second appointment. Petitioner has not even attempted to explain the long delay of 14 years in staking his claims. Evidently from a mere reading of order relied upon by the petitioner himself it is clear that the rule relied on by him is not applicable to the fact situation. The petitioner's advice itself was cancelled and for that reason he was terminated from service and not because of mere want of vacancy. Therefore, the rule relied on is clearly inapplicable to the petitioner's case. O.P. No. 6543/2002/D -4- Therefore, for more than one reason, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp