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 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 715 of 2008(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37096/2007 Dated 23/05/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------- GANGADEVI.K., RESIDING AT IRIPPAKKAL HOUSE, SOUTH MANKUZHY MURI, BHARANICAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLICL SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.715/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 37096 OF 2007-N ----------------------------------------- Dated 17th October, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner has filed this Review Petition, contending that the Public Service Commission should have applied the reservation with reference to the cadre strength and not with reference to the vacancies reported. On that ground, the petitioner prays for reviewing the judgment. 2. But, we notice that no such ground had been taken in the writ petition. So, the judgment cannot be faulted for not considering a point not raised in the writ petition or argued. Further, we notice that the point raised by the petitioner is squarely covered against her by the decision of the Apex Court in Nair Service Society v. Distt. Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission [(2003)12 SCC 10]. The RP 715/2008 2 relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the legal submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties. The impugned judgment, in our opinion, did not appreciate the well-settled principles of law that the court should not substitute the provision of a statute by its own decision. In this case, the impugned judgment ignored the provisions of statutory rules to substitute the decision in the place. The KS & SS Rules, 1958 lay down the principle of reservation under Article 16 (4). The Rules laid down the principle and the procedure if to be followed in giving effect to the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in the State. Rule 15 refers to the integrated cycle of rotation and it deals with the procedure to be adopted in selections where any candidate may become available for recruitment from the reserved group. This Rule lays down the principle of limitation of percentage of reservation including the carry-forward. The reservation of vacancies including carry-forward vacancies shall not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which selection by direct recruitment to that category is resorted to in that year. Rule 16 provides that there is sub-rotation among OBCs. Rule 17 enumerates the subgroups among OBCs mentioned in Rule 14(a) and Rule 16. Throughout these Rules, there are clear indications that the scheme of reservation followed in the State of Kerala under direct recruitment is with respect to vacancies. Rule 14(c) lays down the manner of making appointments. Rule 15 also makes it clear that appointment referred to is with reference to vacancies as made out in the proviso under Rule 15(c) and the note thereunder. The judgment of the High Court proceeds on the wrong premise that the principle of reservation is with reference to the post. In our view, Rules 14-17 do not contemplate making a supplementary list and RP 715/2008 3 the statutory rules envisage making a ranked list which is defined in Rule 2(g) of the KPSC Rules of Procedure. Rule 2(g) of the KPSC Rules of Procedure reads thus: '2. (g) 'Ranked list' means list of candidates arranged in the order of merit either on the basis of the interview or examination or by both'.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has specifically stated that Rules 14 to 17 of the K.S. & S.S. Rules mandate that reservation has to be applied with reference to the vacancies reported. In the decision quoted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court, holding that the High Court proceeded on the wrong premise that the principle of reservation has to be applied with reference to the posts. In view of the above position, the Review Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/