IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 641 of 2008(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11482/2004 Dated 23/05/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------- ASWANI.V., ARMUGHA NIVAS, OZHUKUPARA, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECTRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BINDUKUMARI.S.K.,(ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT), LAST GRADE SERVANT, C/O.DISTRICT COLLECTOR), PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. JYOTHIKUMAR.T.(ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT), ERAMATHU VEEDU, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 694. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,. SC – FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN – R6 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.641/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 11482/2004-P ----------------------------------------- Dated 21st November, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. She was a candidate included in the list published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servant in various departments in Pathanamthitta district. The writ petition was disposed of along with a batch of writ petitions, wherein the correctness of the application of communal rotation by the P.S.C was in issue. This Court held that if the vacancies are reported in blocks of more than 20, 50% of the vacancies should be filled strictly on the basis of merit and the remaining 50% should be filled, applying communal rotation. In other words, the vacancies should not be fragmented into blocks of 20 each for the purpose of advice. In this case, the petitioner made a request RP 641/2008 2 before this Court that the P.S.C may be directed to furnish the details of the requisitions received. This Court, pursuant to the said motion, asked the P.S.C to furnish the details of the requisitions, as per order dated 7.4.2008. But, later, this writ petition was also taken along with other writ petitions for orders and before the P.S.C could furnish the details, the judgment was pronounced on 23.5.2008. The review petitioner says, those details may be called for and if vacancies were reported in blocks exceeding 20 in number, the benefit of the judgment of the Division Bench in the batch of cases may be extended to her also. 2. While dismissing the writ petition, we noticed that the rank-list in which the petitioner was included, was published on 29.4.1999. It expired on 5.2.2003. The writ petition was filed only on 31.3.2004. So, there was considerable delay in moving this Court, seeking reliefs. But, the learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that the review petitioner is claiming one of the vacancies, which were reported before the expiry of the rank-list. There was representative impleadment of one of the affected persons and there was paper RP 641/2008 3 publication also, it is pointed out. 3. If the principles declared by the Division Bench in Public Service Commission v. Beermasthan [2008(2) KLT 797] are applied, several persons, who were advised and appointed, are likely to be affected. In such cases, representative impleadment is not sufficient. The parties concerned should be personally impleaded. Further, the petitioner should have approached this Court against the adverse action, normally, within three months of the same. But, in this case, there is a delay of more than one year for filing the writ petition, after the expiry of the rank-list. For the above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this Review Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/