IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35294 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.RAVICHANDRAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, RESIDING AT KUNNATH VEEDU, ERALAMPULLY P.O., VILAYODI, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-1. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD-1. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678101. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN STANDING COUNSEL MR.P.P.THAJUDHIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.35294 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims that he belongs to Thandan community. He applied for a caste certificate from the 4th respondent which was turned down. Against that proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent heard the appeal on 15.4.2008 and orders have not been passed by the 1st respondent so far. 2. In the meantime, the P.S.C included the petitioner as rank No.1 in the supplementary rank list of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor). According to the petitioner, P.S.C has now issued Ext.P8 threatening to remove the petitioner from the aforesaid list for the reason that the petitioner did not produce the caste certificate so far. It is also pointed out that his very inclusion in the list was on a provisional basis pursuant to the direction of this court in the judgment in W.P(C) No.189/2008. It is in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal and to require P.S.C not to take further action on the basis of Ext.P8. W.P(C) NO.35294 OF 2010 2 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. If as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appeal was heard, as early as on 15.4.2008, it ought to have been disposed of within a reasonable time. Now that the petitioner complains that the appeal is not disposed of so far, I direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if the 1st respondent so desires, it will also be open to the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner afresh and pass orders in the matter. It is directed that once orders are passed as above, the 1st respondent shall immediately communicate the same to the 2nd respondent for taking further action in the matter. 5. In the meantime, until order are so passed and communicated, the 2nd respondent shall not take further action based on Ext.P8. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb