IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WA.No. 939 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3264/2008 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. RASHEED.P.K., AGED 36, S/O.KONTHRISM, PURUMADATHIL, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VENGALLOOR KARA,VENGALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. MANOJ KUMAR.P.R., AGED 32, PUTHENPURAYIL, VENGALLOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No. 939 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants were persons included in Ext.P1 rank list published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Excise Guard in Idukki District. The said list came into force on 31.1.2002. At the relevant time, there was a ban, against making direct recruitment to vacancies, issued by the Government. The rank list expired on 31.1.2005. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 25.1.2008. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) Declare that the restriction contained in the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, to the extent it prescribes that The Public Service Commission can extend the period of validity of a ranked list only by a maximum period of 1 ½ years only in spite of a continuance ban on public employment or circumstances delaying reporting of vacancies, is illegal and ultra vires the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. W.A.No.939/2009 2 ii) Declare that in the event of a ban on public employment or in the event of situations in which the reporting of vacancies to the Public Service Commission is delayed or prevented, the Public Service Commission is bound to extend the validity of the ranked list by a period equivalent to the period of ban or equivalent the period during which the reporting of vacancies to the Public Service Commission is prevented or delayed owing to circumstances of extra ordinary situation. iii) Declare that in view of the ban on public employment contained in Exhibit P2 Government order dated 16.1.2002, the Kerala Public Service Commission is bound to extend the validity of Exhibit P1 ranked list, during the entire period of the ban, ignoring the restriction in the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Rules of procedure, as stipulated in Rule 40 of the said Rules.” 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It was also found that there is no merit in the challenge against the validity of the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. 3. We notice that the ban against the appointment introduced as per Ext.P2 Government Order dated 16.1.2002 was lifted by the Government in 2003. The rank list expired only on 31.1.2004. So, nothing stood in the way of the appointing W.A.No.939/2009 3 authority to report the vacancies and the P.S.C. to advice candidates to those vacancies. Therefore, there was no necessity for extending the validity of the rank list invoking the power of the P.S.C. under the 5th proviso to Rule 13. Therefore, the challenge against the said proviso will not help the appellants in any manner. So, it is unnecessary to consider the sustainability of that challenge. We endorse the view of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was filed with unexplained and inordinate delay. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps