IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 37530 of 2004(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BINU.P., EDAYILE VEEDU, VALIYAZHEEKKAL, KANDALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. AJITHKUMAR.R., KANNATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R6.T.G. SANTHOSHKUMAR, THANNICKAL, PLASSANAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R7.SRI. O.A. SHANABAS, OLICKAPURAYIL, VELANILAM P.O., KOOTTICKAL, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R8.SRI. M.K. MURALEEDHARAN, MARUVATHANKAL, POONJAR SOUTH, KUNNOONY P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R9.SRI. P.D. OMANAKUTTAN, VADAKKEDATHIL, MUKKUVANKUDY, PAYYAPPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU-FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R4 & 5 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R6,7,8,9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 37530/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the G.O.(Rt) No.689/04/TD dated 24.9.2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 37530 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are rank holders in the list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 5.10.2001 for appointment to the post of Excise Guard. The said list expired on 31.12.2004. During the life period of the rank list, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition, mainly with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to report 21 vacancies of Excise Guards in Kottayam District from the aforesaid list. 2. This Court passed an interim order on 24.12.2004 directing the third respondent to report 21 vacancies of Excise Guards in Kottayam District to the fifth respondent within five days from the date of the order. In compliance with the said interim order, two vacancies were reported before the expiry of the rank list. Failure on the part of the third respondent in reporting the entire vacancies, as directed, led to the filing of a contempt petition, C.C.C. No. 89 of 2004. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed W.A. No.150 of 2005 challenging the interim order passed by this Court. The Writ Appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 25.1.2005 with a direction to report the remaining 19 vacancies. W.P.(C) NO. 37530/2004 2 Subsequently, the remaining 19 vacancies were also reported, but admittedly, only after the expiry of the period of the said rank list. These facts are not disputed. Thus, going by the admitted facts, though an interim order was passed directing to report 21 vacancies of Excise Guards, only two vacancies were reported before the expiry of the rank list and the remaining 19 vacancies were reported only after the expiry of the rank list. 3. The short question which arises for consideration is whether in the light of the said factual position, any relief can be granted to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in view of the interim order dated 24.12.2004, the respondents were bound to report all the 21 vacancies and, therefore, it is only appropriate to issue a direction to the respondents to effect advice and appointment as against the remaining 19 vacancies of Excise Guards, even though those vacancies were reported after the expiry of the rank list. 4. I am afraid, such a direction cannot be issued in the light of the decision of a Bench of this Court in Public Service Commission v. Govindan, 2000(1) K.L.T. 33. The contentions now canvassed by the petitioners are concluded by the said Bench decision. It is an admitted W.P.(C) NO. 37530/2004 3 position that before the expiry of the rank list, only two vacancies of Excise Guards were reported and as against those reported vacancies, appointments were effected. In the decision in Govindan's Case (supra), it was held that merely because an order has been passed, which is not complied with, that cannot be a ground to validate the list after its expiry. In view of the authoritative pronouncement on the subject, this Court cannot issue any direction for validating the list in question, considering the fact that the list had expired on 31.12.2004, and to effect advice and consequential appointment as against the remaining 19 vacancies reported subsequent to the expiry of the rank list. In this context, it is relevant to note that the very contention of the respondents is that the said vacancies were actually not in existence and that 19 vacancies were reported only to comply with the interim order dated 24.12.2004. The question of granting any relief by deeming the reported vacancies as vacancies reported during the life period of the rank list is also out of question, in view of the decision in Govindan's Case (supra). The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 37530/2004 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 37530/2004 JUDGMENT 20th October, 2009 W.P.(C) NO. 37530/2004 5