IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29988 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. DEVADAS.C., CHERUKANDATH HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, PALAKKAD 678 651. 2. PRAMODKRISHNAN R.K., NARAYANALAYAM, THANNIRAGAD, MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR.R. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29988 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notification issued on 18/11/2003 for filling up the post of Agricultural Assistants Grade II. Ext.P3 is the short list and Ext.P4 is the ranked list that was published on conclusion of the selection process. The main complaint of the petitioners is that on the date of Ext.P3, there were 399 vacancies and that the list contained only 440 candidates. Their submission is that the list did not contain sufficient number of candidates and therefore the list should be enlarged by issuing a supplementary list. For that reason, petitioners submit that Ext.P11, the vacancy notification subsequently issued is also bad. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submit that Ext.P4 ranked list has exhausted itself as early as on 28/5/2008 and that it was thereafter that Ext.P11 vacancy notification was also issued. It is submitted that the prayer made at this distance of time is not maintainable. He also invites my attention to the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.18916/08, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing WPC 29988/09 :2 : WA No.1173/09, where identical prayer was rejected and one of the ground was that the list already published had exhausted and that a fresh notification was also issued. 3. Having gone through the judgments relied on by the standing counsel for the respondents, it is seen that the grievance dealt with in that case was identical to what is raised in this writ petition. Therefore, the issue is covered against the petitioner. For that reason, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp