P MOHAMMED MUNEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA; PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER; KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is a graduate in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery. The writ petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P9 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to revive Ext.P2 rank list.

(2.) Ext.P2 was a rank list published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Tutor in Pharmacy in the Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. The appellant was rank No.1 in the supplementary list of Muslims of that list. The said list expired in November, 2008. Though the appellant approached this court earlier, claiming appointment on the basis of his inclusion in the rank list, he could not get any relief as there were no vacancies in that cadre to accommodate him. The Government in that writ petition took the stand that Tutor is a vanishing category and the Government is abolishing that post. But recently, the Government by Ext.P9 order decided to revive 12 posts of Tutor and directed the second respondent to take steps to fill up the post. Challenging Ext.P9 to the extent it directs the second respondent to fill up the post, the writ petition was filed. If that direction is allowed to stand, the second respondent will report the vacancy to the PSC and the PSC will take steps to prepare the rank list. The petitioner wants those posts to be filled from Ext.P2 rank list, which has already expired. Therefore, he made a further prayer that the respondents may be directed to extend the period of Ext.P2 rank list. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) It is for the Government to decide whether the post of Tutor should be created or abolished. Any decision to abolish a post or create the very same post again, does not affect any legal right or legally protected interest of the appellant. It is a matter of policy of the Government. So, we find nothing wrong with Ext.9 order, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When those posts are created, they have to be filled up in accordance with law. So, the direction issued to the second respondent to take steps to fill up the posts also cannot be faulted.