Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. During 2005, several writ petitions were filed before this court seeking orders for publication of additional ranked lists, for 8 Districts, other than the aforesaid four Districts and Pathanamthitta and Idukki Districts. These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Ajayan V. Sate of Kerala (2006(3)KLT 854). The Public Service Commission challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Apex Court by filing special leave petitions which were dismissed by order dated 26.3.2008, on the ground that it was not maintainable as PSC had no locus standi in the matter. It is stated that, implementing the said judgment, shortlists for 8 districts covered by the judgment reported in Ajayan's case were published and the steps for the publication of the additional ranked lists have been taken.

4. Though the judgment reported in Ajayan's case was rendered in writ petitions filed in 2005, these present writ petitions concerning Kollam, Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts were filed in July, August and September 2008 and relief similar to what was granted in Ajayan's case is prayed for.

5. The contention raised is that, the petitioners being candidates similarly situated like the petitioners who filed the earlier batch of writ petitions should also get the benefit of the judgment in Ajayan's case and that the PSC should publish additional ranked lists concerning these districts as well. Counsel for the petitioners claim parity in treatment relying on the judgments reported in State of Karnataka & Ors V. C. Lalitha (2006(1) Supreme Today 640), Somukuttan Nair V. State of Kerala (1997(1)KLT 6901) and K.T. Veerappa & Ors V. State of Karnataka and Ors.(2006(9) SCC 406).

6. The standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that though the SLP filed against the judgment in Ajayan's case supra was dismissed, review petition filed before the Apex Court is pending and that pending consideration of the review, the judgment has been implemented in so far as the 8 districts covered by the judgment are concerned. It is stated that, in so far as other Districts are concerned, no direction has been issued by this court and they have not implemented the judgment. It is stated that fresh notification has been issued for preparation of ranked lists. It is contended that the petitioners herein are guilty of delay and laches and that even for claiming the benefit of the judgment, the conduct of the party concerned is relevant. They are also heavily relying on the judgment in Ajayan's case, where it has been held as follows;

9. As already noticed, the judgment reported in Ajayan's case was rendered by this court on 13.6.2006 in writ petitions which were filed in 2005. Admittedly, the petitioners herein have approached this court only in July, August and September, 2008. The question is whether by reason of the delay in filing the writ petitions and asserting their rights, the petitioners have rendered themselves disentitled to the relief sought for.

10. In my view, answer has in the judgment in Ajayan's case itself by which the earlier round of litigations were disposed of. In that judgment it has been held that those who have not challenged the lists so far, will not be entitled to the benefits as they have slept over the matter for years.