IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 218 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUSEELA.N., SREE SOWTHAM, PANANKAVU, PATTAMCHERRY, PALAKKAD-678532. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN 678 001. 3. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RANJITH R2 BY ADV.SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.218 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT In this case, the petitioner was included in the rank list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in various departments in Palakkad district. But, contrary to the expectation of the petitioner, the petitioner was advised to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Warden and the petitioner was appointed as Warden in the Schedule Tribe Development Department. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, after having selected for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, it is impermissible for either the PSC or the Government to advise or appoint the petitioner to any other post than Lower Division Clerk and therefore, the advice and appointment as Warden is clearly unsustainable. The petitioner points out that the very same issue was the subject matter of several writ petitions before this Court and in several W.P.(C)No.218/11 2 writ petitions this Court had accepted identical contention of similarly placed persons. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and the learned Government Pleader. The learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader do not dispute the fact that this Court has accepted similar contentions by other similarly placed persons. Their only contention is, against those judgments, writ appeals are pending. The learned Government Pleader submits that this Court has upheld the contention of the Government that the post of Warden is in addition to the cadre of Lower Division Clerk. 3. I am not satisfied that those are contentions which can be accepted for the proposition that a person, who has undergone selection for the post of Lower Division Clerk, can be advised and appointed as Warden, which is a different post for which the petitioner has not applied for at all that too without obtaining consent from the petitioner or inviting options from the persons in the ranked list. In W.P.(C) Nos.35060/10 & 38033/10, which are identical cases, I had W.P.(C)No.218/11 3 passed the following 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 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 W.P.(C)No.218/11 4 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 of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to the selection process. The writ petitions are disposed of as above”. Following that judgment, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of that judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.218/11 5 W.P.(C)No.218/11 6