IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 3600 of 2008(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BINU.S.KUMAR, "SUSMITHAM", K.P.VII/659, KODAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NANDAKUMAR R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7268 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3600/2008 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RANK LIST (RELEVANT PORTIONTHAT CAME INTO FORCE ON 31/12/2005. P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE DISTRICT OFFICE OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DTD. 1/06/2007. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION EVIDENCING THE NAME OF CANDIDATE WHO DID NOT JOIN IN THE DEPARTMENT. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17/01/2008. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/01/2008 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE R2(A): COPY OF LETTER NO.E3-964/08 DTD. 04/02/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.3600 of 2008 & 7268 of 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Common questions arise in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Kerala Public Service Commission, herein after referred to as the “Commission” for short, invited applications for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in various departments in Thiruvananthapuram District. After selection, a ranked list was published on 15.01.2006. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.3600 0f 2008 is serial number 70 in the supplementary list of Scheduled Caste candidates and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7628 of 2008 is serial number 56 in the supplementary list of Muslim candidates. The petitioners contend that the non-joining duty vacancies reported to the Commission before the expiry of the ranked list have not been filled up by advising candidates. In these writ petitions, the petitioners seek W.P.(C).NO.3600 of 2008 & 7268 of 2008 2 a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commission to issue advise memos for filling up the non-joining duty vacancies. 3. The Commission has filed a counter affidavit stating that the last Schedule Caste candidate advised from the ranked list was rank number 68 in the supplementary list and the last Muslim candidate advised from the ranked list was rank number 54 in the supplementary list. It is stated that the last candidate in the main list of the ranked list was advised on 14.07.2008 and that the turn of the petitioner's did not arise in respect of vacancies that had been reported to the Commission before 14.07.2008. The Commission has also stated that the ranked list stood exhausted on 14.07.2008 when the last candidate in the main list was advised and that it cannot thereafter be operated. 5. The Apex Court has in Nair Service Society Vs District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, 2003 (3) KLT 1126 held that with the advice of the last candidate from the main list, the ranked list will cease to be inforce. It was also held that non-joining duty vacancies reported after the main list of the ranked list stood exhausted cannot be filled by advising candidates from the W.P.(C).NO.3600 of 2008 & 7268 of 2008 3 supplementary lists. 6. In the light of the authoritative of pronouncement of the Apex Court, the petitioners who are candidates included in the supplementary lists cannot claim that they should be advised for appointment after the main list should exhausted. Further, the turn of the petitioners for advice did not arise before 14.07.2008. The petitioners have not been able to show that vacancies against which they could have been advised had been reported to the Commission before 14.07.2008 and that their turn was over looked. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE RAV