IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25965 of 2010(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. DIVYA K.S., W/O. AJITHKUMAR E.S., EDASSERRY HOUSE, P.O.PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680 686. 2. SAVITHA P. JOY, W/O. C.T.SHAJU, POTTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 662. BY ADV. SRI. KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 25965 of 2010(U) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF L.D. CLERK IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS IN THRISSUR DIST. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED 29.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE PSC TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED 29.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE PSC TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.2010 IN WP(C) NO. 36139/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.8.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ============= W.P.(C). No.25965 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to notification inviting applications for the post of L.D.Clerk in various departments in Thrissur District. The 1st petitioner was advised to the post of LDC/Warden in ST Department. The grievance of the 1st petitioner is that petitioner has been appointed as LDC and posted as Warden which according to the petitioner is illegal in so far as the 1st petitioner's selection was to the post of LD Clerk. The petitioners therefore, seeks the following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P2 and P3 advice memos only to the extent to which those advice the petitioners for appointment to the post of warden in ST Development Department and to the extent to which those do not advice the petitioners for appointment to the post of L.D.Clerk in various departments in Thrissur district; ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue advice memo to the petitioners, advising them to the post of L.D.Clerk in various departments in Thrissur district on the basis of their position in Ext.P1 ranked list; iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to modify Ext.P2 and P3 W.P.(C). No.25965 OF 2010 2 by converting the same as one advising the petitioners for appointment to the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments; iv) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioners submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of a learned judge of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. The learned counsel for the Public Service Commission stoutly opposes the prayers. According to him, Ext.P4 judgment has been taken in Writ Appeal No.1713 of 2010 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the relief as in Ext.P4 pending disposal of that appeal. He also relies on other decisions of other single judges of this Court in W.P.(C).Nos.30967 of 2007 and 14019 of 2009 in answer to the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that those decisions were also considered and have been distinguished by the very same learned judge who passed Ext.P4 judgment, in Maya v. State of Kerala in 2010 (3) KLT 454. The petitioner's counsel also points out that in the writ appeal W.P.(C). No.25965 OF 2010 3 no stay was granted. 2. Having heard both sides. 3. I am inclined to follow Ext.P4 judgment which reads thus: “Petitioners were included in the ranked list for the post of LDC in various Departments. However, they were advised to the post of Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department as per Exts.P3, P4 and P5 advise memos. The contention raised is that, they having been included in the ranked list for the post of LDC in various Departments, they could not have been appointed in the ST Development Department as Warden. This case of the petitioner is fully covered in their favour, in view of the judgment in WP(C).No.3896 of 2010 and connected cases. In view of the above, petitioners are entitled to succeed as they could not have been advised to Scheduled Tribe Development Department as Warden. Accordingly, Exts.P3,P4 and P5 stand set aside. Petitioners will be retained in the ranked list and will be advised against the immediately arising vacancies already reported”. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed in terms of that judgment. That part of Exts.P2 and P3 contrary to the above decision shall stand set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 shall issue appropriate orders clarifying that the 1st petitioner has been advised to the post of L.D. Clerk within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This decision shall be applicable only W.P.(C). No.25965 OF 2010 4 to the 1st petitioner since the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second petitioner's complaint no longer survives. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. pm