IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12737 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BINDU.T.T, D/O.VASU, AGED 34 YEARS, THOTTITHODIYIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA P.O., KULUKKALLUR VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SANDHYA.P.V, W/O.MANOJ.P.S., AGED 37 YEARS, PADIKKATHAZHATH HOUSE, MANGAT POST, PAZHANJI VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695002 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION BUILDING, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM 691001 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.VIJULAL ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12737 of 2011(N) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER (JR) IN THE KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.2.11 SUBMITTED BY AJISH KUMAR K.A. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.4.11 SUBMITTED BY AJISH KUMAR K.A. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.399/2009 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT IN CRIME NO:399/2009 P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.4.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.4.11 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. RKC //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.12737/2011-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Both the writ petitioners were included in the ranked list for appointment to the post of Non Vocational Teacher (Junior) in the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department. Ext.P1 is the copy of the ranked list dated 18/12/2007. They were included as rank Nos.59 and 60 in the supplementary list of Scheduled Caste candidates. Mainly it is pointed out in the writ petition that certain Scheduled Caste candidates had submitted their relinquishments to the Public Service Commission. Mention is made about rank No.47 also in that context. It is also pointed out that one of the candidate who was issued advice memo committed suicide. 2. Going by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the ranked list expired on 31/05/2011. It is also pointed out that the ranked list exhausted on 29/03/2011 before the above said validity period, since all the candidates in the main W.P.(C). No.12737/2011 -:2:- list had been advised within that date. Apart from the same, the contentions raised by the petitioners have been refuted by pointing out that relinquishment of Shri Ajish Kumar K.A who is rank No.47 had received in the office of the P.S.C only on 21/02/2011 before which the proforma reporting 40 vacancies for the post had been received and Shri Ajish Kumar was advised against one of those vacancies. Reliance is placed on Rule 18 (ii) of the Rules of Procedure to contend that the relinquishment should have been made on or before the date of requisition of advice of the candidates concerned. It is also pointed out that the details of the expiry of one of the candidates Smt. Santhoshima G. was brought to the notice of the P.S.C only by the representation filed by the second petitioner. 3. In the light of the factual scenario emerged herein, it can be seen that rank list itself exhausted on 29/03/2011. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs in the matter, the writ petition is hence dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms