IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38033 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHYLA BEEVI P.A., W/O.SALIM, AGED 39 YEARS, PEZHUTHUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, NEAR MUNDAKKALKAVU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADVS. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA SMT.KABANI DINESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R3 BY ADV.SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.35060/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.35060 & 38033 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT In these two writ petitions the petitioners appeared for a selection, pursuant to notification invited by the Kerala Public Service Commission, to the post of Lower Division Clerk in various departments of the Government. They were included in the rank list. However, one of them was advised as Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department whereas others although were advised as Lower Division Clerks were actually appointed as Warden. The petitioners challenge the same on the ground that when they had participated in the selection process for Lower Division Clerks, the law does not permit the respondents to appoint them as Warden. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC. This Court has, in several decisions, taken the view that after having selected W.P.(C)Nos.35060/10& Con.case 2 persons as Lower Division Clerks, they cannot be either advised or appointed as Warden. The only argument raised by the respondents is that since the vacancies arose in the post of Warden, they were advised against the same. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submits that this Court has, in some decisions, taken the view that the post of Warden is in addition to the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. If that be so, it was perfectly open to the respondents to invite applications for the posts of Lower Division Clerk and Warden together and after having selected the candidates for the post of Lower Division Clerks, they could not have been either advised or appointed as Warden against their wishes. If at all, the respondents wanted to do so, they should have first obtained option from the persons in the rank list for such advice or appointment. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioners in these writ petitions shall be restored in the rank list as before and shall be advised against the vacancies of Lower Division Clerks, as and when vacancies arise in the post W.P.(C)Nos.35060/10& Con.case 3 of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to the selection process. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)Nos.35060/10& Con.case 4