IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 18760 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. PRASEENA K.P PRASI AYURVEDIC, KALIKAVU JUNCTION KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. SINDALA K.V.,PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE NALUKETTU P.O.,KORATTY,THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. SINI V.S., VAIMELI HOUSE, NADUTHURUTH MELOOR PO CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 18760 OF 2008 (G) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Exts. P3 and P4 are the two rank lists published by the PSC for the post of HSST and HSST(Junior) Sociology. These lists came into force from 5/11/2004 and 15/10/2004 respectively. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, regarding the HSST post, though initially the dispute was raised about the filling up of SC vacancies at turn No.32,52, 64, 72 and 84 in the integrated cycle, controversy is now confined to the post at turn No.72, a post reserved for SC candidates. According to the petitioners, presently Ext.P1 ranked list has been published by the PSC for the post of HSST and that this list has come into force from 30/12/2006. It is stated that in Ext. P1, they have been ranked in the supplementary list, being SC candidates. It is stated that now they are available to be advised against reserved vacancy at turn No.72 and one among them should be advised against that vacant turn. 2. It merits mention that in so far as turn No.32 is concerned, going by the counter affidavit of the PSC, this has already been compensated. In so far as turn Nos. 52 and 64 are concerned, these SC turns have been filled up by candidates belonging to Ezhava and Muslim WPC 18760/08 :2 : due to non availability of SC candidates. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the PSC that these turns will be compensated from the list depending upon the availability of candidates or by NCA notification. In so far as turn No.84 is concerned, that turn was also re notified by Ext.P9 and it is submitted that the same has been cancelled and will be filled up as in the case of 52 and 64. 3. The controversy is in respect of the post at the 72nd turn. According to the petitioners, now that they are available in Ext.P1 ranked list for the post of HSST, one of them should be advised against turn No.72. Counsel for the petitioners contend that re notification is an unnecessary exercise when candidates are available in Ext.P1 ranked list. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is contradicted by the standing counsel for the PSC. It is stated that by the time the vacancy at turn No.72 arose, the rules were amended and the amended rules at 15(a) of Part II KS & SSR had come into force. According to him, as per the said rule, if a candidate of the particular category is not available, the only option that is available to the PSC in terms of Rule 15(a) is to keep the post unfilled and to renotify the same separately for that particular community, in terms of the provisions WPC 18760/08 :3 : contained in Rule 15(a). According to them, it was therefore that they have issued Ext.P9 renotification. It is contended that such a vacancy cannot be filled up from Ext.P1 ranked list, a subsequently prepared one. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the PSC, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the PSC. In my view, the position is clear from Rule 15(a) referred to above and this rule requires that if suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular community or group of communities, such vacancies shall be kept unfilled, notified separately for that community or group of communities for that selection year and shall be filled up by direct recruitment exclusively from the community or group of communities to which the vacancy has been earmarked in the integrated cycle of rotation. The rule does not contemplate filling up such vacancies from a subsequent list. This is precisely what the PSC has done by Ext.P9. Therefore, the action taken by the PSC in this regard cannot be faulted. 5. Coming to the claim raised relying on the vacancies in Ext.P4 list of HSST (Jr) are concerned, in para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the PSC, it has been stated that only 5 vacancies were reported and candidates were advised on 4/5/2006 and that SC candidates did not WPC 18760/08 :4 : report for duty. It is stated that since no SC candidate was available in the list to fill up the NJD vacancy, the same was also re notified in the manner as directed in Rule 15(a) referred to above. It is stated that accordingly, a ranked list was published and the candidate was advised. Therefore, this vacancy cannot be filled up from Ext.P2 ranked list. 6. The counsel for the petitioner, in the reply affidavit, has pointed out that the candidate advised has not joined duty. If the said statement is correct, PSC can advise candidates against that vacant post only when the appointing authority reports the NJD vacancy. Therefore, as at present no direction can be issued in so far as that vacancy as well. 7. In view of the position as above, it is directed that the vacancies at turn No.52, 64 and 84 referred to above shall be filled up depending upon the availability of the candidates from the list or as NCA vacancies. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp