IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4825 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. RAJEEMOLE.C.R., PLAKKOTTATHIL HOUSE, ANDOOR, MARANGATTUPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SANUMON.N.R., NJALUVALLIL HOUSE, T.V.PURAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. CHANDRALEKHA.P, NADUVILIDAKKAPUZHA HOUSE KUDAYATHOOR P.O., KOLAPRA, IDUKKI. 4. ASWATHY.V.K., SIDDHAR HOUSE, PANAYAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 002. 5. SWAPNA.G, THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ONAMTHURUTHU.P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 602. BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC FOR R3 SMT. NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 SRI.V.RAJENDRAN, SC, KPSC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4825/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF RANKED LIST FOR the POST OF HSST(JR.) HINDI CAME INTO FORCE W.E.F 17.11.08. EXT. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DTD. 15.12.08 ADDRESSED TO COMMISSION. EXT. P3 : COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY COMMISSION DTD. 16.1.09. EXT. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DTD. 15.12.08 ADDRESSED TO COMMISSION. EXT. P5 : COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY COMMISSION DTD. 27.12.08. EXT. P6 : COPY OF G.O.(MS) No.160/08/G.EDN DTD. 15.9.08. EXT. P7 : COPY OF SPLIT OF POSTS IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS AS APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA. EXT. P8 : COPY OF RANKED LIST (BOTH MAIN LIST AND SUPPLEMENTARY LIST). EXT. P9 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT. P10 : COPY OF INFORMATION THEY RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND CODIFIED IN THE FORM OF A CHART WITH REFERENCE TO DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4825 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are seeking for extension of the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher – Hindi (Junior). 2. The ranked list came into force on 17.11.2008. The case of the petitioners is that the main list containing 95 candidates and the supplementary list containing 225 candidates alone was published. The petitioners are relying upon certain materials produced as Exts.P2 and P3 as well as Exts.P4 and P5 in support of their pleas. Ext.P5 reply given by the Public Service Commission will show that 117 vacancies were pending with the Public Service Commission for advice. Exts.P2 and P3 show the number of sanctioned posts, number of persons holding the post at that point of time and the number of vacancies exist. Ext.P6 is a Government Order creating various posts. Thus it is pointed out that the Commission did not include adequate number of W.P.(C) No.4825/2009 2 persons in the ranked list. 3. The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is explained as follows: “.....A total number of 39 vacancies were reported at the time of finalisation of selection i.e. before the preparation of Short List. On the basis of the above reported vacancies, the Commission prepared a Short List by including 100 candidates in the Main List and 225 candidates in the Supplementary List. The Director of Higher Secondary Education reported a total of 117 vacancies for the above post. Out of the above vacancies, 78 vacancies were reported after the publication of the Short List and only 39 vacancies had been available at the time of preparation of the Ranked List”. 4. The learned counsel for the Public Service Commission strongly relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas vs. Public Service Commission (2009 (2) KLT 295). Thus the substantial contention raised is that only 39 vacancies were reported to the Public Service Commission before publication of the short list and therefore, the short list consisting of 325 candidates was published by the Commission which was adequate. W.P.(C) No.4825/2009 3 5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit. The question is whether the short list should have a size of three to five times of the vacancies as contended by the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ajayan vs. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 854). The entire aspects were considered by the Full Bench in Ravidas vs. Public Service Commission (2009 (2) KLT 295) and from paragraph 41 onwards, the relevant aspects were considered. Evidently, the Public Service Commission relies upon the prescribed procedures as per the circulars governing the matter. 6. The Full Bench in Ravidas's case (supra) in paragraph 39 has referred to a circular No.30 of 2003 dated 01.12.2003 wherein it is stipulated that the Commission will decide the number of candidates to be included in each case considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, the nature of the post and the chances of occurrence of vacancies. 7. Herein, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that from the previous rank list, 258 candidates have been W.P.(C) No.4825/2009 4 advised. Therefore, the retirement of vacancies and other circumstances which led to creation of posts should have been considered by the Commission. After considering various aspects, in paragraphs 41 and 42, the Full Bench upheld the plea raised by the Commission, wherein with regard to the appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department, 81 vacancies were notified and against the said vacancies, 195 candidates in the main list and 99 in the supplementary list were included in Ext.P6 short list therein. 258 candidates were advised from the ranked list published on 02.07.2005. There was no material to show that apart from 81 notified vacancies, other vacancies had been reported to the Commission before the preparation of the short list and the ranked list. Therefore, the Full Bench concluded that it cannot be said that adequate number of candidates were not included in Ext.P6 short list or in the ranked list published on 02.07.2005. In any case, the ranked list contained more than 3 times the number of notified vacancies and from the ranked list, 258 candidates were also advised. W.P.(C) No.4825/2009 5 8. Herein, the ranked list containing 95 candidates in the main list and 191 candidates in the supplementary list has been exhausted after the advice of 120 candidates. Therefore, it is a case where 120 candidates got advised based on the ranked list. Even if three times of vacancies reported are taken, it will be seen that the same is satisfied as 39 vacancies alone were reported initially. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that a fresh notification has also been issued. The Full Bench in paragraph 42 has also stated that the candidates included in the ranked list have no right to claim that all the vacancies arising for a period of three years should be filled up from only one ranked list. I am not finally pronouncing anything on the same as even otherwise it can be seen that sufficient number of candidates were included by the Commission. 9. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various materials to show that the number should have been much higher so that at least some of the candidates like the petitioners would have been advised. Herein, the question is only W.P.(C) No.4825/2009 6 whether the Commission has followed a method which was proper or not. Going by the affidavit, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted arbitrarily in fixing the number of candidates to be included in the ranked list and the supplementary list. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp