IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11285 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T. HUSSAN, 1ST GRADE DRAFTSMAN P.W.D., N.H. SUB DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION) P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SMT.M.R.SREELATHA SC SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C). 11285/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner entered service as IIIrd Grade Overseer in the Public Works Department and while so, was directly recruited as IInd Grade Draftsman by the PSC in 1982. While continuing in PWD as IInd Grade Draftsman, petitioner responded to the notification issued by the PSC for direct recruitment as Draftsman Grade-I (Civil)/ Overseer Grade-I (Civil) in PWD, against the vacancies which were reserved for the departmental candidates. Written test was conducted on 7.4.1993 and interview was held on 11.5.1993. Petitioner was included in the rank list published by the PSC. 2. In the meanwhile, PWD was bifurcated into Irrigation and Public Works Department. Petitioner opted for PWD and was allotted to PWD. In spite of this, Ext.P2 advice memo was issued by the PSC. His advice was shown to the post of Draftsman/Overseer (Civil) in PWD/Irrigation. Petitioner filed a representation before W.P.(C).11285/2008 2 the second respondent to keep his posting in the Irrigation Department in abeyance, vide Ext.P3 representation. But when no action was forthcoming on the same, he approached this Court in O.P.2108/1997 seeking a direction to the Government to allot him to the PWD. This Court vide Ext.P4 judgment directed the Chief Engineer to take a decision. In the meanwhile, the advice effected by the PSC remained unchanged and therefore, the Chief Engineer, making enquiries with the PSC as to whether there was a re-advice, and receiving an answer in the negative, passed Ext.P7 order holding that the allotment of the petitioner to the Irrigation Department does not seem to be illegal and therefore, assignment of rank No. 1520 of the petitioner as First Grade Draftsman in the PWD does not warrant any interference. In other words, though the petitioner was advised by the PSC to the post of First Grade Draftsman in 1996, he continued as IInd Grade Draftsman in the PWD and was ultimately promoted as First Grade Draftsman, in the due course. It is Ext.P7 which has been challenged in this writ petition. It may be noted W.P.(C).11285/2008 3 that in the meanwhile, petitioner has approached the Government with Ext.P8 representation. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. In circumstances where the advice made by the PSC has not been cancelled and there has been no re- advice as such, it is difficult to find fault with Ext.P7. But the facts also reveal an unfortunate predicament in which the petitioner was placed for no fault of his. I also take note of the fact that this Court had in almost similar circumstances, upheld similar contentions vide Ext.P5 judgment. Difference between Ext.P5 judgment and the present case seems to be that in the case of Ext.P5, there was a frontal challenge against the advice given by the PSC and in the present case, petitioner had sought for a direction to the Government to re-allot him to the PWD. But the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be found fault with for the predicament in which he was placed, in spite of the fact that he was included in the rank list W.P.(C).11285/2008 4 published by the PSC for the post of First Grade Draftsman/Overseer. 5. In my view, the present case is one where the Government could readily invoke its power under Rule 39 of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. 6. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is free to supplement Ext.P8 with an additional representation and it is open to the Government to invoke the power under Rule 39 of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition also along with the copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs W.P.(C).11285/2008 5