IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18586 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS ------------ 1. MANJU GOPINATH, 'SUVARNA'. PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 004. 2. K.MOHAMMED GADHIAFI, DARUL FALAH, CHULLIPARAMBU P.O., VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DIST., P.B.NO.7, PIN - 676 304. BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA SC - KPSC, SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 18586 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Homoeo Doctors and have been included in Exhibit-P2 supplementary list for the post of Homoeopathic Medical Officer published by the Public Service Commission on 3.7.2004. There was challenge to Exhibit P2 rank list by two persons in W.P.(C) No.10751 of 2004 essentially on the premise that PSC had acted illegally in prescribing cut off marks for the candidates to be included in the rank list. Broadly the said contention was accepted by the Division Bench in Exhibit P1 judgment. But it was made clear that since the candidates who are already selected are not parties in the writ petition, the case of the petitioners in the writ petition may be considered only after exhausting the existing list. It was further made clear that persons who have not challenged the list so far, even if similarly placed will not be entitled to the benefits as they have slept over W.P ( C) No. 18586 of 2008 2 the matter. 2. Exhibit P1 judgment was carried before the Supreme Court in Appeal by the PSC. Special Leave Petition was rejected by the Supreme Court essentially on the premise that Appeals and Special Leave Petitions preferred by the PSC are not maintainable. Learned standing counsel for the PSC submits that an application for review is yet to be considered and disposed of by the Supreme Court. But the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10751 of 2004 is being implemented without prejudice to the result of the review petition. 3. Essentially petitioners pray that the main list should be enlarged. This seem to be resultant upon a feeling that inclusion in Exhibit P1 supplementary list will not enable them to get a chance of advice. This contention obviously cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The Division Bench has specifically made it clear that the benefit of the judgment for a direction to be included in the rank list will be restricted to the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petition. Accepting the petitioners contention would be to W.P ( C) No. 18586 of 2008 3 go against the direction of the Division Bench. Secondly, the petitioners are already included in the rank list but in the supplementary list. They had no grievance so far to such inclusion. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 18586 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No. 18586 of 2008 5