IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12431 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHERUAB C.D. LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE KOTTAYAM. 2. K.K.SOMASEKHARAN, LECUTURER IN ECONOMICS, K.M.M.GOVERNMENT WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KANNUR. 3. THE SHAMEERDAS, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, GOVERNMENT BRENNAN COLLEGE, THALASSERY. 4. SANTHOSH T.VARGHESE, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, P.M.GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, CHALAKKUDY. 5. N.KARUNAKARAN, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD ADV.ALAXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 12431 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are working as Lecturers in Economics. They got appointment pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in the year 1996. Although they were included in the rank list, they were not advised, though there were vacancies available. They approached this Court. In O.P.No.25220/2001, a Division Bench of this Court found that the 2nd respondent did not report vacancies despite specific orders in that regard passed by this Court earlier. Therefore, this Court disposed of the original petition with the following directions: “15. O.P.No.25220 of 2001 and W.P.(C).No.7606 of 2004 are allowed with the following directions: i. The first respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission, is directed to inform the second respondent, Director of Collegiate Education in writing the names of the candidates included in the Ranked list and who would have been advised, had the ten vacancies been reported to the first respondent by the Director of Collegiate Education, before 28.01.2002 as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on 18.01.2002. This shall be done by the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii. If any or all the petitioners in O.P.No.25220 of 2001 and W.P.(C).No.7606 of 2004 are included in the list of names furnished by the first respondent, they shall be appointed as Lecturers in Economics by the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of the letter of the first respondent. iii. In the case of the petitioners appointed pursuant to the above direction, the date of the letter of the first respondent shall be treated as the date of advice.” Thereafter, the petitioners took a contention that they are entitled to effective date of advice and notional appointment with effect from an anterior date. Taking this stand, they filed Ext.P8 before the Government and filed W.P.(C). No.19681/2009 before this Court. This w.p.c.12431/10 2 Court directed consideration of Ext.P8. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P9 order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners relying on Ext.P7 judgment itself. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P9 order and seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P9 Order and quashing the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to grant seniority and all consequential benefits to the petitioners in the category of Lecturer in Economics with effect from 28.1.2002. iii) declare that the petitioners are entitled to be granted seniority in the category of Lecturer in Economics in the Collegiate Education Department with effect from 28.1.2002 with all consequential benefits.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. As is clear from Ext.P5 judgment, by directions in which alone the petitioners got appointment, it is abundantly made clear that the date of the petitioners' appointment pursuant to the direction in Ext.P5 judgment would be the date of the letter from the PSC to the Government as directed. Therefore, the petitioners, after suffering Ext.P7 judgment, cannot now contend that they are entitled to a different effective date of advice. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.12431/10 3