Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. We heard Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission and Sri.R.Padmaraj, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala. Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners contended that the judgment dismissing the writ appeal is a cryptic judgment, that it does not give any reasons and therefore on that short ground, the instant review petition is liable to be allowed. The learned counsel also submitted that out of the four candidates who were included in the ranked list pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, two candidates had the same marks as the first petitioner (64 marks), one candidate had the same mark as the second petitioner (62 marks) and last candidate had only 60 marks. Though the last candidate with 60 marks was not appointed, one candidate with lesser mark than the first petitioner has been appointed thereby affecting the rule of merit. It was submitted that if the impugned judgment is allowed to stand, the petitioners who were found to be of equal merit or more meritorious than atleast one among the candidates appointed will be denied appointment. Learned counsel also contended that paragraph 7 of the decision in Ajayan V. State of Kerala (supra) can have no application to the petitioners for the reason that Smt.K.K. Usha and Smt.Geetha Mathew, the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.10751 of 2004, Smt.Seeta Philip, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11393 of 2004 or Smt.Nisha A.N, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11828 of 2004 are persons to whom show cause notices had been issued calling upon them to show cause why their names should not be deleted from the said short list, that the petitioners are the candidates who were included in the short list and in the ranked list and therefore, as the petitioners had no grievance against the short list or the ranked list, the observations in paragraph 7 of the judgment in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) cannot be held out against the petitioners.

8. The learned counsel contended that the Division Bench of this court has in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to re-cast the ranked list and publish an additional list within two months and advise candidates against the vacancies reported during the currency of the ranked list and that the said judgment attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission before the Apex Court and therefore, the Commission had a duty to enlarge the ranked list and to advise the petitioners against the available vacancies. The learned counsel also submitted that neither the learned single Judge nor the Division Bench considered the fact that the review petitioners had got themselves impleaded in the appeal filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission before the Apex Court and that it was with them on the party array that the decision of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) was upheld by the Apex Court and therefore, for that reason also, they are entitled to the benefits flowing from the said judgment.

9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission submitted that the ranked list was published on 15.03.2004, that the main list of the ranked list stood exhausted on 25.7.2006 when the last candidate in the main list was advised and that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Nair Services Society v. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission [2003 (3) KLT 1126], the petitioners who were included in the supplementary lists cannot be advised and therefore on that short ground, the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel also submitted that the Division Bench of this court has not, in Ajayan V. State of Kerala (supra) directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to re-cast the ranked list as was done in the case of the ranked lists for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) and H.S.A (English), that in the case of appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Homoeo), the only direction issued by the Division Bench was to consider the claims of Smt. Usha K.K and Geetha Mathew, if vacancies are available, without disturbing the persons already selected, if during the period of validity of currency of list vacancies had been reported. Learned counsel submitted that in such circumstances, there is no merit or force in the submission made by the review petitioners that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra), the Kerala Public Service Commission was bound to publish an additional ranked list. The learned standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission submitted that the direction to publish an additional list was confined to the post of H.S.A (English) and Medical Officer (Ayurveda) and therefore, the Kerala Public Service Commission had no obligation to publish an additional list for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Homoeo). Learned counsel contended that the petitioners who were aware of the decision of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) at least when they got themselves impleaded in Civil Appeal No.4587 of 2006 by filing I.A.No.3 of 2007 should have prayed for appropriate modification of the decision of the Division Bench in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) before the Apex Court or sought the leave of the Apex Court to move this court seeking a review of the judgment in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) and that having not been done, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Learned counsel also submitted that the instant review petition was filed only on 31.5.2014, with a delay of more than six years, and that having regard to the long delay in filing the review petition and the recruitments that have taken place after the ranked list published on 15.3.2004 ceased to exist, no relief can be granted to the review petitioners. Learned counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission submitted that challenging the judgment dismissing W.A.No.1546 of 2008, the review petitioners had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, that the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by order passed on 23.4.2014, that the Apex Court has not granted leave to the review petitioners to file a review petition seeking a review of the impugned judgment and therefore for that reason also, the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The ranked list with which we are concerned, viz; for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Homoeo) was published on 15.03.2004. It ceased to be in force on 25.07.2006 when the last among the 131 candidates in the main list of that ranked list was advised [vide the decision of the Apex Court in Nair Service Society v. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission (supra).] The successful petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.10751 of 2004, 11393 of 2004 and 11828 of 2004 were included in the ranked list only thereafter. Three among them alone were advised and the last candidate, viz; Mrs.Nisha A.N, though included in the supplementary list was not advised. This took place in the year 2008. The petitioners who were aware of the decision of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) and the principle laid down therein, viz; that cut off marks could not have been prescribed, ought to have in our opinion moved this court immediately after the decision in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) was rendered and sought appropriate reliefs. Instead, they got themselves impleaded in the appeal filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission before the Apex Court against Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) and was satisfied with the dismissal of the civil appeal. They did not at any point of time until after the ranked list ceased to be in force and the three year period of validity had expired, file a writ petition in this court seeking enlargement of the ranked list. Though the review petitioners contend that the Division Bench of this court has in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to prepare an additional list, we find no merit or force in the said submission. A close reading of the decision of this court in Ajayan v. State of Kerala (supra) will disclose that the said direction was issued only in relation to the post of H.S.A (English) and Medical Officer (Ayurveda). As regards the post of Medical Officer (Homoeo), the only direction issued by this court was to direct that the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.10751 of 2004, be considered for advice and appointment if vacancies are reported during the currency of the list without disturbing the candidates already selected. No direction to enlarge the ranked list of candidates selected for the post of Medical Officer (Homoeo) was issued in W.P.(C).Nos.11393 of 2004 and 11828 of 2004.