IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 955 of 2003() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29715/2003 Dated 30/09/2003 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS//RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND FIRST RESPONDENT. ----------------------------------------------- 1. AJAYAKUMAR T. S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, PARAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KOLLAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- R.P No. 955 of 2003 in W.P (C) No.29715 of 2003 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th October,2009 O R D E R The Public Service Commission has come up in review essentially contending that a crucial factor which was relatable to the writ petitioner was omitted to be brought to the notice of the Court which had proceeded to decide the issue that was common to several other writ petitions involving selection to the post of Livestock Inspector. 2. In the judgment under review, the learned Judge has referred to the publication of the rank list by the PSC, for the post of Live stock Inspectors. The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment was VHSC and SSLC in the absence of the former. The writ petitioners came under the category of reservation for Defence Personnel holding an SSLC qualification. Learned Judge who heard the writ petition also referred to an earlier judgment of this Court in WPC No.20951 of 2003 R.P No. 955 of 2003 in W.P (C) No.29715 of 2003 2 and connected cases, wherein, it was held that it will be equitable for the PSC to advice candidates with VHSC, first from each group and then advise candidates with qualification of SSLC after exhausting the persons with the primary qualification. The Commission was directed to ensure that the petitioners get appointment on duly eligible dates and their rightful claims for appropriate date of advice was to be noticed. 3. Normally these directions would not have in any manner prompted the PSC to file an application for review but apparently in so far as the writ petitioner herein is concerned he had incurred a disability which is peculiar to him. It seems that he had simultaneously applied for the same post in two different districts Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. This gave rise to ineligibility. Had it been noticed earlier, it would have entailed the rejection of application itself. It is therefore that the Commission seeks review of the judgment contending that the writ petitioner is not entitled to be advised to the post as he had R.P No. 955 of 2003 in W.P (C) No.29715 of 2003 3 applied for the same post in two different districts simultaneously. 4. The averments made in the review petition remain un-controverted. 5. In these circumstances, I proceed on the premise that the Commission is correct in so far as the factual aspects are concerned. The Commission is entitled to reject an application filed by a person and cancel his advise as well if he applies simultaneously in more than one district in the same post. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Asokan Vs. PSC [2001 (2) KLT 788 (SC)] In these circumstances, the judgment dated 30.9.2003 in WPC No.29715 is set aside and the review petition is allowed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma R.P No. 955 of 2003 in W.P (C) No.29715 of 2003 4 R.P No. 955 of 2003 in W.P (C) No.29715 of 2003 5