Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. These Writ Petitions relate to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department. Writ Petition (C) No.11916 of 2005 is treated as the main case and the documents referred to are those produced and marked therein. By Ext.P1 notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 26.8.2003, the Commission invited applications for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade-II in the Animal Husbandry Department. The number of vacancies notified was 81 and the last date fixed for receipt of applications was 22.10.2003. A written test was conducted on 25.8.2004 and thereafter, Ext.P6 shortlist of 294 candidates, consisting of 195 in the main list and 99 in the supplementary lists was published on 10.12.2004. After verification of documents, 6 candidates who were found ineligible to apply were excluded from the shortlist. In Ext.P6 shortlist it is stated that candidates who have obtained 50 marks and above have been included in the Main List and that cut off marks have been lowered to the extent necessary in respect of candidates included in the supplementary list. The shortlisted candidates were interviewed between 22.4.2005 and 28.4.2005 and a ranked list was published on 2.7.2005. The petitioners contend that though only 81 vacancies had been notified, the vacancies had increased due to retirement/creation of additional posts, that the Commission does not have the power or authority to prescribe cut off marks for preparing the shortlist and that the Commission has not ensured that candidates corresponding to 3 to 5 times the total number of notified/anticipated vacancies are included in the shortlist. The petitioners contend that by prescribing cut off marks, eligible candidates were excluded from the shortlist and that prescription of cut off marks is illegal. They rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) in support of their contention that the Commission cannot prescribe cut off marks and thereby exclude eligible candidates from being considered for selection.

41. We shall now consider the question whether the shortlisting done by the Commission in the cases on hand suffers from any other infirmity. In the writ petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department, the number of vacancies notified was 81. The petitioners contend that though only 81 vacancies had been notified in Ext.P1, the vacancies had increased due to retirement/creation of additional posts and that the Commission has not ensured that adequate number of candidates corresponding to 3 to 5 times the total number of notified/anticipated vacancies, is included in Ext.P6 shortlist. Ext.P6 shortlist, the method of preparation of which is objected to, consists of 195 candidates in the main list and 99 in the supplementary lists. The pleadings disclose that 258 candidates were advised from the ranked list published on 2.7.2005 and the main list of the ranked list exhausted after advising 258 candidates. The writ petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II were presented on 6.4.2005 and 28.8.2006. It is also not in dispute that a fresh notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department was issued on 15.1.2007 and a written test was also held for those who applied pursuant to it on 19.12.2007. Though Ext.P7 circular (Circular No.17 of 1987) stipulated that shortlists should contain three times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list, that stipulation was modified by Circular No.30 of 2003 dated 1.12.2003 wherein it is stipulated that the Commission will decide the number of candidates to be included in each case considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, the nature of the post and the chances of occurrence of vacancies. On the terms of Circular No.30 of 2003, by which Ext.P7 circular in W.P.(C) No.11916 of 2005 was modified, it was not mandatory for the Commission to prepare a main list containing 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list. The number of vacancies of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department notified in Ext.P1 was only 81 and it cannot therefore be said that the shortlist and the ranked list did not contain adequate number of candidates.