IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14911 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. VINOD K., PEON (SPORTS SECTION), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANITHAKUMARI C.K. HOSPITAL ATTENDANT GR.II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, BEDADUKKA, P.O. BEDIADUKKA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC. R2 BY MR. C. UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14911/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED ON 05/12/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DTD. 07/04/2008 ISSUED TO THE P.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DTD.07/04/2008 ISSUED TO THE P.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR CATEGORY NO.225/2005 AND 226/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).262/2007/(59)/FIN DTD. 19/06/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.46/07/WRD DTD. 30/07/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission and Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority. 2. The petitioners who were working as Peon and Hospital Attendant Gr.II respectively in different departments, applied for appointment by direct recruitment and also by transfer to the post of Lower Division Typist in various departments in Kasargod district. The notification inviting applications was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 31.12.2005. By the same notification, applications were invited for appointment by direct recruitment in the Kerala Water Authority. The petitioners applied both for appointment by direct recruitment and by transfer. They were selected and included in list I of Ext.P1 ranked list containing the names of candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment. They were also included list II of Ext.P1 ranked list containing the names of candidates selected for appointment by transfer. In list I, the petitioners are rank Nos.17 and 19 and in list II, rank, Nos.3 W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A 2 and 4 respectively. The petitioners did not relinquish their right for advice based on the inclusion of their names in list I of Ext.P1 ranked list. As a result thereof, when the turn of the petitioners arose, they were advised for appointment by direct recruitment in the Kerala Water Authority by Exts.P2 and P3 advice memos dated 7.4.2008. The said action was legal and proper for the reason that even in the notification inviting applications by direct recruitment, it had been stated that vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority will also be filled up from the same ranked list. This writ petition thereupon filed contending that as the names of the petitioners have been included in list II of Ext.P1 ranked list they are entitled to be appointed by transfer in departments other than the Kerala Water Authority and that if they are appointed in Kerala Water Authority they will loose their chances of appointment in other departments. In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to advice them to the post of L.D Typist in Government departments. 3. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit wherein, relying on Rule 18(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the Commission has contended that with the advice of the petitioners based on the inclusion of their names in list I of Ext.P1 ranked list, their names stand automatically deleted from list I W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A 3 and list II of Ext.P1 ranked list. The Commission has contended that even in the notification inviting applications it had been stated that appointment by direct recruitment will be made from the same ranked list to vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority also and that the petitioners who had applied for appointment by direct recruitment cannot contend that they cannot be advised for appointment in the Kerala Water Authority. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P4 notification, which led to Ext.P1 ranked list states in categorical terms that vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority will also be filled up from the same ranked list. The petitioners applied for direct recruitment fully aware of this stipulation. They were selected and included in list I of Ext.P2 ranked list. Rule 18(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure states that a candidate whose name has been included in more than one ranked list for the same post in the same department/various departments finalized on the basis of the very same notification under different methods of recruitment, is advised from any one of the aforesaid ranked lists, his name shall be removed from the other ranked list/lists. In the light of the said rule, the validity of which is not under challenge in this writ petition, with the advice of the petitioners for W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A 4 appointment by direct recruitment in the Kerala Water Authority as per Exts.P2 and P3 memos, their names stood deleted from Ext.P1 ranked list. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Kerala Public Service Commission acted illegally in advising the petitioners for appointment in the Kerala Water Authority when their turn for advice arose. In the light of Rule 18(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the contention raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab