IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26369 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINDUMOL.V.,D/O.V.GOVINDAN, VANNARATH HOUSE, THURUTHIPARAMBU, ANNALLUR P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 004. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001. 3. BAIJU K.P., WATCHMAN, I.T.I.,CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680307. 4. KELU.K., WATCHMAN, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT, CHUVANNAMANNUR, PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680653. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 6. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSE ADIYODI ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26369 of 2011(U) APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF LAST GRAGE SERVANT IN THRISSUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 26369 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a person who has been included as serial No. 24 in the supplementary list for Scheduled Tribe candidates prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC for short) for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servants in various departments in Thrissur District. The petitioner complains that without advising and appointing her the persons who were ranked as serial Nos. 26 and 27 have been advised. Therefore, according to the petitioner she has been discriminated against for the sole reason that she was a female. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the PSC. It is admitted that the petitioner is ranked as serial No.24 in the supplementary list. However, when her turn for appointment came the post available was that of a W.P.C No. 26369 of 2011 -2- Watchman. As per the Special Rules applicable females are considered to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Watchman. Therefore, the petitioner was bypassed and the next male candidate in the rank list was advised for appointment. According to the counsel, the Special Rules are not challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Further, the constitutional validity of the Special Rules has been upheld by this Court in a writ appeal judgment. Counsel points out that the main list itself was exhausted on 30.09.2011 and therefore, the supplementary list is no longer capable of being operated. For the above reasons it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. 4. Though the petitioner was ranked as serial No.24, when her turn for being advised for appointment came, the vacancies available was that of a Watchman. As per the W.P.C No. 26369 of 2011 -3- provisions of Kerala Last Grade Service Special Rules, only male members are eligible to be appointed as Watchmen. Therefore, the petitioner could not be advised for appointment, she being ineligible to be advised for the said post. As rightly contended by the counsel for the PSC, since the petitioner has not challenged the rule, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the impugned action of the PSC. Apart from the above it is pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Rules as per its judgment in W.A. No.1041/2007. In the above situation, the action of the PSC in bypassing the petitioner cannot be found fault with. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Kp/-