IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 218 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2738/2011 Dated 27/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. MARAKKARUTTY.C,S/O.KOYASSAN, CHITTALAKKTTE, PO PANTHIRANKAVU, KOZHIKODE 673 019. 2. ABDUL SHAJID.P, S/O.MOOSA, PAYEDATH PO EKARUOL,UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE 673 574. 3. SHAMSUDEEN.K.K,S/O.K.ABDUL MAJEED, KURUPPASSANKANDY, PO NANNINDA,KOZHIKODE 673 613. 4. MUHAMMEDALI.K, S/O.MOIDEEN, KUZHIMPATTIL HOUSE,ARAPPUZHA, PO PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. ASEES.K.P, S/O.MOYUTTY,KALLUVALAPPIL, PO GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-14. 6. SAJEEVAN.O,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, OTTAKANDATHU HOUSE,KURUVASSERI PO, KOZHIKODE 673 010. 7. SHIJU.K.P,S/O.KUNHAN,KATTUPULOOR, ASWATHI NIVAS, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE 673 015. 8. SURESH.O, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NADUVILATHARAMEL HOUSE, MEPPAYUR PO,KOZHIKODE 673 524. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1&2 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 219 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 218 of 2011 & W.A.No. 219 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The issue raised in these Writ Appeals is regarding the recruitment to the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The appellants approached this Court contending that pursuant to the notification published by the Public Service Commission, a rank list was published containing 527 candidates in the main list and 1222 candidates in the supplementary list. According to appellants, during the currency of the rank list, 623 candidates were advised and the rank list exhausted on 27.11.2010. It is stated that as on the date when the rank list got exhausted, 95 vacancies were in existence in the Electricity Board. Therefore, the appellants contended that the rank list did not contain sufficient number of candidates to be advised against the vacancies available in the Electricity Board. WA.218 & 219/11 2 3. The case of the appellants is that the Public Service Commission had the obligation to prepare the rank list, duly taking note of the vacancies which arise during the currency of the rank list applying the principles laid down in the decision reported in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (2006(3) KLT 854). It is on this basis, seeking a direction to the Public Service Commission to prepare an additional rank list of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in Kozhikode district that the Writ Petitions were filed. Following the judgment in W.P(C).No. 18424 of 2008, which was upheld in W.A.No.1173 of 2009 by the Apex Court, the Writ Petitions the Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court, mainly on the ground of delay and latches. 4. In the appeals filed, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the ground on which the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions is erroneous. It is stated that there was no delay or latches on the part of the appellants in approaching this Court and therefore, the reliefs ought to have been granted. However, it is the admitted case of the appellants that they approached this Court only in December, 2010, whereas the ranked list, which was published in February, 2007, got exhausted on 27.11.2010. On publication of the ranked list, when the number of candidates was known to the appellants, they did WA.218 & 219/11 3 not raise any complaint regarding the inadequacy of candidates in the ranked list. It is therefore evident that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching this Court. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 5. Even on merits, we are not in a position to accept the case canvassed by the appellants that the Public Service Commission should have taken into account the vacancies which arose during the currency of the rank list at the time when the ranked list was published. 6. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P(C).No.2738 of 2011, against which W.A.No.218 of 2011 is filed, it has been averred by the Public Service Commission that the recruitment was initiated based on a notification dated 17.5.2006, which was only for anticipated vacancies. It is stated that before the Public Service Commission decided on the short list of candidates, only 145 vacancies were reported. It is on that basis that the Public Service Commission conducted the recruitment and finalised the rank list which included 527 candidates in the main list and 1222 candidates in the supplementary list. There is no reply affidavit filed by the appellants contradicting these factual averments made by the Public Service Commission. From this, therefore, it is WA.218 & 219/11 4 obvious that the number of candidates included in the rank list satisfied the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the decision reported in Ajayan's case (Supra). 7. As far as the case of the appellants that the Public Service Commission should have taken into account the vacancies which arose during the currency of the rank list is concerned, the claim made by the identically situated candidates is already rejected by a Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission (2009(2) KLT 295). 8. Therefore, for both for the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are, therefore dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgsr