Kerala High Court
Sreelekha R. Sreevilasom vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 20 July, 2005
Bench: K.A.Abdul Gafoor, K.Hema
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 595 of 2004
1. SREELEKHA R. SREEVILASOM,
... Petitioner
2. SUNIL KUMAR G, MANNARATHARAYIL,
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
3. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated : 20/07/2005
O R D E R
.SP 2 ........L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......J.......T....
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.HEMA, JJ.@@ jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
-----------------------------------@@ jEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE W.A.No.595 of 2004-E@@ jEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
----------------------------------@@ jEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Dated this the 20th July, 2005@@ jEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE JUDGMENT@@ EjAAAAAAAA ((HDR 0 # W.A.595/04 )) .HE 1 Abdul Gafoor, J.@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Petitioners 5 and 8 are in appeal impugning judgment dated 29.1.2004. Their anchor is the judgment reported in Jyoti.K.K.& Ors. v. Kerala Public Service@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Commission & Ors. (JT 2002(Suppl.1) SC 85). It is@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA submitted that few of the petitioners in the impugned judgment, namely, petitioners 1, 4 and 9 filed W.A.No.2681 of 2002 in time against the impugned judgment and obtained the benefit of Jyoti's case (supra). It is@@ AAAAAAAAAAA thereafter these appeals have been filed with a delay of 794 days. Of course, the said delay has been condoned. The point urged by the appellants has some force in the light of the decision rendered by the apex court in the decision cited above and a judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Annexure A-I. The relief to be granted is to report vacancies, to advise the petitioners and to appoint them either as Overseer (Civil) in K.S.E.B. or as Overseer Grade-II in the Kerala Water Authority for which posts they have responded pursuant to Exhibits P1 and P2 notifications. It is an admitted case before us that the respective ranked lists were published by the P.S.C. on 20.10.2000 and 22.1.2001 and both the lists had expired on 31.3.2004. It is now trite in terms of the decision of the Full Bench reported in Vimalakumari v. State (1994(2) KLT 47) that:@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA .SP 1 "...If no request is made by the State to the@@ i P.S.C. for advising candidates during the currency of a list, the Court cannot compel the P.S.C. to advise candidates after the expiry of the list."
.SP 2 It was further made clear by the Full Bench that:
.SP 1 "...The list expired in the meantime and this@@ i Court cannot now direct the Commission to advise the petitioners or direct the State to appoint the petitioners, for it will be a clear violation of the statutory rules which this Court is not entitled to do.."
.SP 2 The direction contained in Annexure-A1 was issued at a point of time when the list was current. Therefore, Annexure-A1 cannot be relied on to get a direction after expiry of the list, in the wake of the mandate of the Full Bench decision referred to above. The decision of the apex court pointed out to us in State of U.P. v.@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Ram Swarup Saroj ((2000)3 SCC 699) also cannot improve@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA the case of the appellants. True, in that case the apex court had directed appointment of certain incumbents as Munsiff-Magistrates notwithstanding the expiry of the list, exercising the powers vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. When the law is now trite in terms of the Full Bench decision as mentioned above, no direction can be given to the State or the Department concerned to report the vacancies, nor a direction be given to the P.S.C. to advise the petitioners from a list which had expired more than a year ago. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the P.S.C. that, in the judgment in W.A.No.2028 of 2003 persons like the appellants claiming the benefit of Jyoti's case (supra),@@ AAAAAAAAAAAA similar relief had been declined on the ground of delay. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA K.HEMA, JUDGE@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEE vgs.@@ EEEE