IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 1867 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36542/2005 Dated 03/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER ------------------------- SIVAKUMAR.K., SAVITHRI NIVAS, KANNAMBRA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. THE DISTIRCT OFFICER, THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. KARUNAKARAN,ACHAYATH HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O.,PATTAMBI, PIN:679 305. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS SC, KPSC, FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1867 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant herein is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36542 of 2005. He is a candidate included in the rank list for Live Stock Inspector, Grade-II in Palakkad district. Ext.P1 is the notification and 10% of the total vacancies are set apart for Ex-servicemen and their dependents. Petitioner applied against the 10% vacancies set apart for Ex-servicemen to be filled up on the basis of priority in the following manner: (a) Ex-service personnel; (b) Wives and children of Ex-service personnel; (c) Dependent brothres and sisters of Ex- service personnel and service personnel.” When the writ petition was originally instituted, the case of the petitioner was that the Public Service Commission had advised three candidates from the rank list and consequently the candidate for (defence quota) from list No.2 one Ratheesh Kumar (rank No.2) and one Anil Kumar S. (Rank No.3) were advised for NJD vacancy. The Public Service Commission had, thereafter, issued advice memos in W.A.No. 1867/2008 2 relation to five vacancies. But, no candidate from list No.2 was advised. The petitioner submitted that on the basis of the advice dated 29.11.2005 and subsequent advices, one vacancy should have been earmarked to the wives and children of Ex-servicemen and since no candidate was available in the list earmarked for recruitment from dependents of defence personnel, the petitioner was entitled to be advised for the vacancy. Counter affidavits were filed denying the contention. The vacancies earmarked for the defence quota were subjected to further sub-classification. The petitioner fell in category 3 (3) relatable to dependents of defence personnel. When one vacancy had arisen which could be filled up by sub-category, a candidate was advised. Now, the case of the appellant is that the appointing authority while forwarding the requision (not NJD vacancy) mistakenly mentioned that the vacancy is for open competition candidate which led to the advice of fourth respondent instead of mentioning that the vacancy is earmarked for wives and children of Ex-service/deceased Ex-service personnel. In short, original vacancy which had been reported to PSC earmarked as open quota actually belonged to the defence quota. All original vacancies were reported prior to 20.6.2005. Writ petition was filed only on 29.10.2007. Validity of the list itself expired on 10.12.2005. W.A.No. 1867/2008 3 Learned single Judge rejected the case of the petitioner on merits and also found that the list itself has expired much before the filing of the writ petition and no relief can be granted. It is well-settled law that after the expiry of the list, no appointment can be made from the expired rank list. In the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent in the writ appeal it was specifically mentioned that out of the 151 vacancies reported, 10% were reserved for dependents of defence service personnel and 15 candidates from defence service personnel quota had been appointed. In these circumstances, we fully agree with the learned single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa W.A.No. 1867/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1867/2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:4th December,2008