IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 7600 of 2007(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. SUBASH MURALI T.R., THOTTEKKOT HOUSE, VADANAMKURUSSI P.O., 2. PRADEEP KUMAR M.P., MARIYIL HOUSE, KOONATHARA P.O., 3. SHYJU M.K., SHYJU VILLA GOVERNMENT PRESS P.O., SHORANUR-2. 4. IYPE LUKE MATHEWS, BINOY BHAVAN, MARTHANADAPURAM, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM. 5. SHAJI.C., CHAMATHUPARAMBIL, VATTUKULAM P.O., KADAPPOOR. 6. DHANARAJ K.P., KANNOTH PAZHAYADATHILAM, PATHAYAKUNNU P.O., 7. ANILKUMAR S.L., NEAR KHADI BOARD, KODUNGALLUR P.O. 8. AJITHA.V.C., VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, KAVALAPPARA P.O., SHORANUR. BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7600/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF PRINTERS GRADE II, IN THE GOVERNMENT PRESSES, IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DT 4.12.2006. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 15.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.1.2007 ISSUED B Y THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP NO.840 OF 2002. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.23623/06/E4 DT 8.8.2006. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7600 OF 2007 (D) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are candidates included in the ranked list published by the PSC for the post of Printer Grade II in Thiruvananthapuram District. According to the petitioners, there are 23 vacancies of Printer Grade II and these vacancies should be reported to the PSC for advising candidates from the ranked list. It is with this prayer the writ petition is filed. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit, pursuant to the directions of this Court, a statement dated 4th of July 2009 has been filed by the 1st respondent. In para 4 of the statement, it has been stated that “no sufficient machinery in the Letter Press side are available for accommodating the printers, if the existing vacancies are reported to the PSC”. It is also stated that “as such there is no proposal to fill up the vacancies of Printer Grade II since the posts of Printers are treated as a vanishing post”. 3. Referring to this averment in the statement, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no decision to WPC 7600/07 :2 : abolish the post or not to fill up the vacancies, and in the absence of which, the statement made by the 1st respondent does not carry any weight. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader relied on the aforesaid paragraph of the statement filed and also the Apex Court judgment in Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala {2008(7) SCC 210}. 5. In the judgment in the case of Subha B.Nair (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that a decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within its domain and that in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a writ court ordinarily would not interfere in such matters. Reference has been made to the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in Deepa Keyes v. Kerala SEB {2007(6) SCC 194} and K.Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission {2007(6) SCC 190}. Therefore, even inspite of the availability of vacancies, it is open to the employer not to fill up the vacancies for reasons which are appealing to him. In this case, from the statement filed by the Director of Printing, Thiruvananthapuram, the appointing authority, it would appear WPC 7600/07 :3 : that they have decided not to fill up the vacancies. There is no material whatsoever to indicate that this decision of the 1st respondent is vitiated for discrimination or arbitrariness. In such circumstances, I also cannot subscribe to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any Government Order to that effect, the decision of the 1st respondent does not carry any weight. In my view, it is open to the 1st respondent not to fill up the vacancies if the circumstances prevailing in their office justify such a decision. 6. On the materials produced, in view of the decision of the 1st respondent as disclosed in the statement filed by him not to fill up the vacancies, I am not persuaded to issue the direction as sought for by the petitioners to report the vacancies to the Public Service Commission. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp