IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33853 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MEHSINA MOIDEEN.M.M, D/O.LATE MOHAMMED MOIDEEN, 1/651, MOCHI VEEDU, FRIENDS NAGAR, PADAMUGHAL, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANADU, PIN-682 030, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 033 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33853 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the proviso to Rule 4, Rules 13 and 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure on the ground that the said Rules are against the spirit of the judgments of the Apex Court in various judgments, wherein the Supreme Court has declared that no rank list shall be operated for filling up vacancies in excess of the notified vacancies. 2. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, Public Service Commission wherein it is stated that the said issue is covered by very many judgments in favour of the Rules, three of which are referred to in their affidavit namely, Jyothis Kumar v. State of Kerala (1996(2) KLT 444), Kerala Agricultural University v. Gopinathan Unnithan (1996(1) KLT 344) and Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman Banking Service Recruitment W.P.(C)No.33853/10 2 Board & others (AIR 96 SC 976). It is also stated that in an identical case in O.P.No.10651/2000 also this Court has held that in view of the long procedure involved in selection made by the PSC the practice of preparing a rank list and giving it a validity of a special period to fill up the vacancies arising within that period from the rank list has been upheld. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is no secret that the PSC is actually handling more recruitments than it can presently do with the infrastructure it has now. In fact, a final ranked list comes into force years after the publication of the notification inviting applications. Between two selections often there would be more than 8 years gap. If every time the PSC is to advise candidates only for the vacancies notified, then we would face a very serious problem in filling up vacancies which arise in the services of the government and other statutory bodies. It is taking into account all these facts that the rules of procedure have been laid down, wherein each rank list is given a specific validity period and all the vacancies which are reported during the currency of the rank list are filled up from the rank list. I am not satisfied that the Supreme Court has laid down any law W.P.(C)No.33853/10 3 which holds that such a procedure is invalid in law. The Supreme Court decision referred to by the petitioner only lays down that where without such a rule a notification is issued for selection to a fixed number of vacancies, only those number of vacancies can be filled up in that selection. The Supreme Court has not considered the validity of such a rule prescribing a validity period for the ranked list and filling up vacancies arising with the period of validity of the ranked list from the ranked list. In fact, that procedure is being followed by the UPSC and the State PSCs all over India. I do not think that in view of the circumstances prevailing in the country, such a rule can be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. Accordingly, I am not inclined to countenance the contentions of the petitioner and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.33853/10 4 W.P.(C)No.33853/10 5