IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35989 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LIJUNATH R, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AYIRAKUZHI, AYIRAKUZHI P.O., CHITHARA, KOLLAM. 2. KRISHNANUNNI, DHARMALAYAM BUNGLOW, KIZHAKKUM BHAGOM, CHITHARA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. PRAMOD KUMAR, P.P. HOUSE, MUDAKKAL P.O., CHEMPOOR. 4. NISARUDEEN, THEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHUMALA, MATHIRA P.O., KADAKKAL, VIA KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC FOR PSC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.35989 OF 2009 (P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the PSC for filling up the post of Lower Division Clerk in Various Department in Thiruvananthpauram District. This notification does not include vacancies in the Municipal Common service. Petitioners were included in the ranked list, a copy of which is Ext.P2. Subsequently, by Exts.P3 to P6 they were advised for appointment in the Municipal Common Service. They were appointed and from 30.5.2009 onwards petitioners joined service. 2. Petitioners now submits that Municipal Common service having not been included in Ext.P1 notification, they ought not have been advised to the Municipal Common Service. Therefore, it is contended that their advise was erroneous and they ought to be appointed in the departments which are notified in Ext.P1. In my view, for more reasons than one, the petitioners cannot raise this contention. 3. First of all, Ext.P11 Government Order dated 14.11.2006 provides for advising candidates to the Municipal Common Service from the ranked list prepared in respect of the posts WPC.No.35989 /09 :2 : mentioned therein. Therefore, as pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the PSC, the respondents were justified in making appointment. 4. If the petitioners' have grievance, they could have protested at least at the time when they accepted the appointment. This the petitioners did not do. On the other hand, they joined the post and are still continuing in the post. Therefore, they are ineligible to raise this claim at this distance of time. 5. Petitioners complain that persons lower to them in the ranked list have been advised against the vacancies in the departments mentioned in the notification. However, the petitioners have no case that as on the date of their advice, their juniors were advised against the vacancies in the department mentioned in the notification. That being so, they cannot have any compliant that they were overlooked at the time of advice Writ petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WPC.No.35989 /09 :3 :