IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28426 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MUHAMMED GAUSE A., S/O.M.AHAMMED KUNJU, THANNIMOODU THADATHARIKATH VEEDU, KOCHUVILA P.O., PERINGAMMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABDUL NIZAR E., S/O.EBRAHIM KUTTY, KARUVAZATHU THEKKETHARA, MOTTACKAL, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA. 3. MOHAMED M., S/O.MOHAMED ABDUL KHADER, VEYIDUKKIL PUTHAN VEEDU, PANGODU P.O., KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 609. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MUHAMOOD T.T. R2 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON 23/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 28426 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are candidates included in the ranked list published for appointment to the post of Part Time Junior Language Teacher - Arabic in Thiruvananthapuram district which was published as per Ext.P1. The ranked list came into force from 29.1.2008. The main prayer in the writ petition is to enlarge Ext.P1 ranked list by publishing an additional ranked list for the post of Part Time Junior Language Teacher - Arabic in Thiruvananthapuram district. They have filed a representation in this matter which is produced as Ext.P2. 2. From the averments in the writ petition, it is evident that the ranked list contained eleven candidates in the main list and the said list has exhausted also. The petitioners were included in the supplementary list as rank Nos.3, 5 and 2. It is the case of the petitioners that even now there are vacancies pending before the Public Service Commission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the judgment of this court in Jyothishkumar v. State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 444) also, the Commission is obliged to publish additional ranked list wpc 28426/2009 2 since the main list is too short and as candidates like the petitioners are not considered and appointed. 4. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission mainly contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. Already the main list has exhausted. Therefore, the supplementary list cannot be operated also. In the light of the above legal position, the request of the petitioners as per Ext.P2 dated 28.8.2009 cannot at all be considered. The petitioners have not approached this court within the time during which the ranked list was in force. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.1173/2009. The above appeal arose from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18916/2008. Similar arguments were considered in the said writ petition also. Therein, this court refused to grant leave since there is delay and laches in approaching this court. The judgment of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 854) was also considered therein. It is clear that the additional ranked list published by the Commission pursuant to the judgment in Jyothishkumar’s case (supra) cannot be relied upon by the petitioners to contend for the position that in this case also, the same yardstick should be adopted. The Division Bench in W.A. No.1173/2009 found that as the writ petition is dismissed for delay and laches, no interference is called for. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that a direction wpc 28426/2009 3 may be issued to the Commission to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2. I find that no purpose will be served by directing the Commission to give a reply to the petitioners since the said petition was also filed only on 28.8.2009, and by this time the main list has also exhausted. For all these reasons, I find that the writ petition is not entertainable. Hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/