IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15281 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ABDUL JALEEL.P., PULPARAMBIL, KARASSERY, MUKKOM, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN SOMANADHAN NAIR SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15281 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in the writ petition are to quash Ext.P6, to direct the 2nd respondent to issue an advice memo to the petitioner and to the 1st respondent to issue order appointing him as Forest Ranger. 2. In response to a notification issued by the PSC for the post of Forest Ranger, petitioner submitted his application, and in Ext.P1 ranked list, his name was included in the Muslim supplementary ranked list as Rank No.1. The case of the petitioner is that the ranked list which was published on 19/2/2003 had its validity upto 18/2/2006. It is contended that in the meanwhile, rules of reservation as contained in Rule 15 of Part II KS & SSR were amended by Ext.P2 order dated 8/03/2006 w.e.f. 2/2/2006. It is stated that till the expiry of the list, 14 vacancies were reported and that 8 open candidates and 6 reserved candidates were advised. It is stated that if candidates were properly advised in terms of Rules of reservation as contained in Rules 14 and 15 of Part II KS & SSR, 7 open WPC No. 15281/2010 :2 : candidates and 7 reserved candidates should have been advised. It is contended that if candidates were so advised, petitioner would have been one of the candidates advised among the 7 reserved candidates. It is stated that this possibility of the petitioner getting advised was thwarted because of Ext.P6. 3. On the other hand, the case set up by the PSC is that the rules of reservation as contained in Rule 15 of Part II KS & SSR was amended by Ext.P2 dated 8/3/2006 w.e.f. 2/2/2006. It is therefore contended that the list in question which was published on 19/2/2003 was governed by the unamended rule till 2/2/2006 and by amended rule w.e.f. 2/2/2006 till 18/2/2006. PSC also contends that the last advice of one Mr.Adarsh was made on 8/9/06 and if the petitioner is to succeed, advice of Sri.Adarsh will have to be invalidated. On this basis, PSC contends that not only that the writ petition filed on 19/5/2010 is belated, but also this writ petition filed without impleading Sri.Adarsh, whose appointment will get invalidated if relief is granted, is also bad for that reason. 4. Admittedly, if relief to the petitioner is to be granted, necessarily, the advice of Sri.Adarsh will have to be cancelled. WPC No. 15281/2010 :3 : Therefore, the writ petition filed without impleading Sri.Adarsh as a respondent suffers from the vice of non jointer of necessary parties, and on that ground itself, petitioner cannot seek relief in this writ petition. 5. Even otherwise, on merits also, I am satisfied that the petitioner cannot get the relief. Facts show that during the initial selection year from 19/2/2003 to 18/2/2004, 11 vacancies were reported against which 6 OC candidates and 5 BC candidates were advised. In the second recruitment year, from 19/2/2004 to 18/2/2005, no vacancy was reported and no candidate was advised. In the third and final recruitment year from 19/2/2005 to 18/2/2006, before 2/2/2006, one vacancy was reported and 1 OC candidate was advised. For the period subsequent to 2/2/2006, two vacancies were reported. Although the Rules were by then amended by virtue of Ext.P2, based on Ext.P4, PSC had worked out the said vacancies to advice 2 BC candidates. However, the matter was reviewed and Ext.P6 was issued clarifying that the amendment will be effective only from 2/2/2006 and on that basis PSC reviewed the decision and advised 1 OC candidate and 1 BC candidate. Thus, out of the 14 vacancies reported, 8 OC WPC No. 15281/2010 :4 : candidates and 6 BC candidates were advised. Thus, from the above, it can therefore be seen that PSC has advised candidates well in compliance with the rules as amended by Ext.P2 and as clarified in Ext.P6. Therefore, no fault can be found on the part of the PSC in having advised the candidates. 6. In so far as the challenge of the petitioner against Ext.P6 is concerned, a close reading of Ext.P6 only shows that the PSC has only clarified the reservation position in terms of the Rules as amended by Ext.P2 and has not introduced anything of its own. So long as rules as amended stands, there cannot be anything objectionable with Ext.P6 also. In that view of the matter, I do not think the petitioner has established a case for interference by this Court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp