IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 690 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1353/2007 Dated 12/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. R.N. RAJEEV (S.100490), RAJ SADAN, TC 54/439, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BIJU C.G. (S.100135), KARTHIKA, KAVALLOOTTUKONAM, PERUKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NEENAMOL C.S. (S.100407), SUMA NILAYAM, CHANI, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JASSIM A. (100259), NAZIM MANZIL, SREE KRISHNA NAGAR, CHAVADI MUKKU, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. 5. S. SAJI (S.101178), VAZHIYETHU HOUSE, PADAPPAKA P.O., KOLLAM-691 507. 6. SUMAM B. (S.101463), MOHANAVILSAM, AYATHIL, ELEVANTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP NO.690/07 -2- 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INDU R.S. (S.100250), SREEDURGA, KAVINPURAM, VILAPPINSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. 4. PRABHAKARAN NAIR E. (S.10466), MUNGATH HOUSE, KARADKA P.O., KASARAGOD-671 542. 5. SATHEESH KUMAR (S.102649), KUMBAKAPPILLIL, PAIPRA, MANARY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. RAJESH S. (S.102393), PLACHERIKUNNEL, ARIKUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA. 7. TESSY VARGHESE (S.102880), THURUTHEL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O.,KOOTHATTUKULA PIN-686 662, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. SAVITHA P.S. (S.102655), D/O. P.SAHADEVAN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VADATTUPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 9. THOMSON V.J., VELIYATH HOUSE, KANDANKADAVU P.O., KOCHI-8. 10. BINOJ K. DIVAKARAN, KOONETH HOUSE, KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANKULAM P.O. 11. RENJITH C.S. (S.100546), CHAITHANYA, MUDAVOORPPARA, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 691 OF 2007 IN WA NO.1365/07, THE COURT ON 14/08/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS. C. KURIAKOSE & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. ============================== R.P.NOs. 690 & 691 OF 2007 IN W.A. NOs.1353 of 2007 & 1365 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Antony Dominic,J. The writ petitions were filed by the review petitioners, who were candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board, against the notification published by the Public Service Commission. By the said notification, PSC had invited applications to 42 vacancies and on completion of the selection process, had published a list of 96 candidates. The review petitioners were not included in the list. According to them, since there were large number of vacancies, than what was notified, the PSC ought not have restricted the select list at 96 and that if such a list was published, they too would have been included in the list. 2. These writ petitions along with connected cases, were heard and dismissed rejecting the plea that there were more vacancies, that the writ petitions were bad for non joinder of necessary parties, that the petitions were belated, that since the list has been fully operated and RP NOs.690&691/07 :2 : exhausted no relief can be granted, that after taking chance in the selection process, a candidate cannot challenge the selection process, and that this very selection was upheld by this court in the judgment in WP(C) No.27174/06. 3. The writ appeals filed against the common judgment were also dismissed by judgment dated 12.6.2007, accepting that there were only 42 vacancies, that the appellants did not secure the minimum marks, and that once a candidate has undergone selection process and failed, it cannot be contended that large number of vacancies were available at the time when the notification was issued. It is seeking review of the judgments in WA.1353/07 and 1365/2007, these review petitions have been filed by the appellants therein. 4. The contention urged in these review petitions is that actual number of vacancies available were much more than was indicated in the vacancy notification and consequently the PSC ought to have published a larger list of selected candidates. It is contended that if such a list was published, the minimum mark for inclusion in the list would have been still lower and if so, the petitioners also would have been included in the list. 5. As we have already noticed, both the learned Single Judge RP NOs.690&691/07 :3 : and the Division Bench declined to accept the plea regarding the availability of more number of vacancies canvassed by the petitioners. In these review petitions, there is no material, muchless any acceptable material has been produced to hold the aforesaid factual finding to be erroneous. That apart, other reasons have also been given in the judgments rendered by both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench for declining relief to the petitioners and the review petitioners have no case that those findings are erroneous for any reason. In such a situation, we see no grounds to allow these review petitions. The review petitions are only to be dismissed and we do so. PIUS. C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp