IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 16828 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- * 1. ROSH K.M., AGED 31, S/O.AUGUSTINE, KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.POOMALA, THRISSUR. *(DELETED). *THE 1ST PETITIONER IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 15/11/10 IN I.A. 15540/10. 2. MUHAMMED SIDHIK P.S., AGED 32, S/O.SHERIEFF, PALAYAM KOTTUKARAN HOUSE, CHALAKUDY (WEST), THRISSUR. 3. SUMI E.J., AGED 32, W/O.E.D.JACOB, EDAKKALATHOOR HOUSE, P.O.PONNORE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. BY SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI, SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY, SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.K.M.RAMYA, SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR, SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY SECRETARY. W.P.(C).NO.16828/2010-C: 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THRISSUR. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. **ADDITIONAL RESPONDETNS 5 TO 7 IMPLEADED: 5. N.K. ANILKUMAR, NEDUMVEETTIL HOUSE, SREELAKSHMI, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 6. C. RADHAKRISHNAN, UNNIKUNNUPARAMBIL, THALASSERY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. M.S. RAJI, THACHARA HOUSE, KANNANKULANGARA, KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR. **ADDL. R5 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 24/10/11 IN I.A. 16606/11. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSE ADIYODI, R2 & R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C, K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.16828/2010-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 31/12/09 FOR THE POST OF LAST GRADE SERVANTS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. DR/II (1) 13015/09/GW DTD. 28/04/10. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) 876/72/RD DTD. 04/09/72. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P)/75/76/PD DTD. 11/03/76. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ANN-I OF VIIITH PAY COMMISSION. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DRAFT OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR KERALA REVENUE MINISTERIAL SUBORDINATE SERVICE (VILLAGEWORKER) RULES, 2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF VILLAGEMAN IN REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF TRISSUR DISTRICT DTD. 19/05/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER FOR THE POST OF VILLAGEMAN PERTAINING TO TEST DT. 10/03/2007, CODE NO.136/07. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER FOR THE POST OF LGS/VILLAGEMAN PERTAINING TO TEST DT. 24/07/2010, CODE NO.175/10. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 16828 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st November, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this writ petition raising a common grievance against an erratum notification dated 28.4.2010 published by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short), which is Ext.P2. As per Ext.P2, the PSC has notified that the candidates who had applied for the post of last grade servants (various departments) as per Ext.P1 notification would also be considered, if otherwise eligible, for the post of Villageman (Land Revenue Department). Therefore, the time stipulated for submitting applications as per Ext.P9, was also extended up to 19.5.2010. It is clarified in Ext.P2 that candidates who had applied for the post of last grade servants need not apply again as per Ext.P2. It has been further notified by Ext.P2 that in the case of candidates who have not passed the 7th standard, they would be considered for the post of last grade servants only. As per Ext.P2, Ext.P1 notification was modified to the extent indicated above. 2. According to the petitioners, though the post of Village WPC 16828/2010 2 man had been included in the last grade service earlier, as per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 4.9.1972, the post of Villageman was separated from the last grade cadre and was constituted into a separate cadre. By Ext.P4, an amendment was effected to the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service by deleting the name 'Villageman' from the said rules. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the post of Villageman became a separate cadre which was not part of the last grade service. There was a proposal to frame Special Rules in respect of the post of Villageman by redesignating the post as 'Village-worker'. Accordingly, Ext.P6 draft rules have been prepared. But, they have not been brought into force yet. 3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are persons who have been ranked in Ext.P7 rank list for the post of Villageman published by the PSC pursuant to a previous notification. The 3rd petitioner is not a person who has been so ranked for the reason that she was not an applicant either pursuant to the previous application or pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. 4. According to the petitioners, the post of Villageman being a distinct and a separate post, which is not part of the last grade service, the PSC had absolutely no authority to club both the WPC 16828/2010 3 posts together and to conduct a common test and selection for them. The counsel for the petitioners points out that the qualification prescribed for the post of Villageman is VII standard and the scale of pay is also different. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioners it was considering the above facts that an interim order of stay has been granted by this Court, which is still in force. He therefore contends that the writ petition is only to be allowed. 6. Three candidates who had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Villageman pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 have got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 5, 6 and 7 in this writ petition. Senior Advocate Shri. K.R.B.Kaimal who appears for the said respondents points out that, out of the three petitioners in this writ petition, petitioners 1 and 2 who had been ranked in Ext.P7 rank list have already been appointed. The third petitioner is a person who has not been so ranked. She has also not submitted any application pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, it is contended that since the grievances of petitioners 1 and 2 are already redressed by their appointments, the third petitioner is not aggrieved in any manner by Exts.P1 and P2. For the above reason it is pointed out that she is not entitled to any of WPC 16828/2010 4 the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. Apart from the above, according to the counsel as per Exts.P1 and P2 the applicants are considered for the posts of both the last grade servant and that of the villageman. Only the persons who have not even passed VII standard are considered for the last grade service alone. Since the other applicants are considered for both the posts together it is pointed out that the mode of selection contemplated by Exts.P1 and P2 is only advantageous to the candidates and not of any detriment to them. It is further pointed out that since the qualifications are more or less similar, the minimum qualification prescribed being either knowledge to read and write or a pass in VII standard the method of selection could not also be much different for selection to either of the posts. For the above reasons the learned senior counsel opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioners. 7. Adv. P.C.Sasidharan who appears for the second respondent seeks to vacate the interim order that has been granted in this case for the reason that the entire selection is held up. According to the counsel, there are more than 100 vacancies of Villagemen in existence. Lakhs of candidates had appeared for the examination pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 and about one lakh WPC 16828/2010 5 persons are to be ranked. The petitioners have not been able to show how they or any other person has been prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the PSC. According to the counsel, the procedure of considering each candidate for both the posts was only advantageous to the candidates and not of any prejudice to any one of them. Though a minimum qualification has been prescribed, it is pointed out that in practice the vast majority of the candidates who apply are persons with a pass in SSLC or above. Some are even degree holders. With reference to Exts.R2(a) and R2 (b) the question papers in the previous as well as the present examination the counsel points out that the nature of the questions are also similar, for the reason that the qualifications required are almost identical. According to the counsel for the PSC the writ petition does not disclose what the qualification of the third petitioner is. Nor is there an averment to the effect that the third petitioner was qualified in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. It is further pointed out that the writ petition is also silent regarding whether the third petitioner had any intention to even apply for selection to the post notified. For the above reasons, the counsel for the PSC opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioners. WPC 16828/2010 6 8. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties and considered the contentions anxiously. It is not disputed that the post of villageman was part of last grade service, until Ext.P3 was issued separating the said post from the said cadre. As per Ext.P4, the special rules have also been amended. Thereafter, a separate special rules have been proposed for the post of villageman. The draft rules are Ext.P6. However, it is not in dispute that the draft rules have not been finalised. In the above circumstances, the said post is one that is not governed by any special rules. However, Ext.P1 notification has been issued by the PSC calling for applications for selection and appointment to the last grade service. As per Ext.P2 addendum Ext.P1 notification has been modified and it has been provided that the applicants could submit applications for the post of villageman also. Since there are no special rules governing the cadre villageman in the present situation, the action of the PSC in clubbing the said post with the selection of personnel for the last grade service cannot be found fault with,especially so in view of the fact that till the issue of Ext.P3 the post of villageman was also borne on the cadre of last grade service. It is no doubt true that the said post has been separated by Exts.P3 and P4. However, no special rules governing the said WPC 16828/2010 7 cadre have not been brought into force. It is also pointed out by the PSC that since the applications received for any post that is advertised, runs into lakhs, it has been the policy of the PSC to club identical posts together for the purpose of making a common recruitment. Identical posts have been clubbed together in the case of various statutory corporations though the scales of pay applicable to each of the posts are distinct and different. Otherwise, it is submitted that the exercise of conducting innumerable tests with identical questions for similar posts would have to be undertaken at considerable expenditure of public revenue. Therefore, it is pointed out that the exercise adopted as per Exts.P1 and P2 are only proper in the circumstances. 9. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, the first and second petitioners have already been appointed to different posts the only person remaining is the third petitioner. She is a person who has not applied for the post, nor was she a person ranked in Ext.P7. At the same time, though lakhs of candidates had applied for the posts and about one lakh persons had taken the test, it is pertinent to note that there has been no complaint from any one of them. Additional respondents 5, 6 and 7 are persons who have taken the test. But, they have no grievance WPC 16828/2010 8 against the procedure adopted. On the contrary, they seek the dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Apart from the above, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are also to the effect that the addendum Ext.P2 should be quashed to the extent candidates of last grade servants (various departments) are being considered for the post of villageman in The Land Revenue Department. The reliefs are as follows:- “i) Call for records connecting Exts.P1 to P7 from the respondent concerned; ii) Call for Ext.P2 from 1st respondent and issue writ of certiorari to quash that part of the order of considering candidates of last grade servants (Various Departments) for the post of Villageman in Revenue Department; iii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to report all available vacancies of Villagemen in Land Revenue Department, Thrissur to the 3rd respondent and on being so received, direct the 3rd respondent to advice to such candidates; iv) Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” The objection therefore appears to be only that the applicants to the post of last grade servants are being considered for the post of villageman also. The same has been done only after issuing Ext.P2 WPC 16828/2010 9 and after extending the time for submission of applications. There is absolutely no averment in the writ petition regarding any prejudice that has been caused to the petitioners, particularly the third respondent by the procedure adopted. Therefore, it has to be held that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge kvs/jj P.S. to Judge WPC 16828/2010 10