LIJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners responded to Ext.P1 notification dated 30.4.2009 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) for appointment to the post of Police Constable (Indian Reserve Battalion - Regular Wing) in the Police Department. After conducting a regular selection process Ext.P2 ranked list was brought into force on 5.6.2010. The petitioners are included in the supplementary list published as per Ext.P2 ranked list. The contention of the petitioners is that going by the notification it was issued for the purpose of filling up 475 vacancies of Police Constables in the Indian Reserve Battalion - Regular Wing. 532 candidates were included in the main list and 571 candidates were included in various supplementary lists attached to the said list. After the coming into force of the ranked list on 13.7.2010, 475 candidates were advised from the said list. According to the petitioners subsequently 146 non-joining duty (NJD) vacancies were reported to the second respondent on 21.2.2011 and consequently, such number of candidates were also advised by the PSC on 5.4.2011. Thereafter 59 NJD vacancies and three fresh vacancies were reported to the PSC on 7.4.2011. By that time except rank No. 530 in the main list all the others stood advised by the PSC. Therefore, with the advice of that last person in the main list, the main list got exhausted. Resultantly, the supplementary lists become inoperative. The grievance of the petitioners pertain to the non-reporting of the aforesaid 62 vacancies reported to the PSC on 7.4.2011. According to the petitioners, going by Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the Commission is bound to advise candidates against all those vacancies reported and pending before it and also against all the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive, in the order of priority, if any, and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable. Therefore, according to them, the second respondent is bound to effect advise against all the reported vacancies on or before 7.4.2011 in spite of the exhaustion of the main list. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 ranked list to the extent if suffers from non-inclusion of sufficient number of candidates in the main list and to advise all the vacancies reported to the second respondent during the currency of the above ranked list. The further prayer is for issuance of a direction to the second respondent to select sufficient number of candidates from among the persons already applied to the post of Police Constable (Indian Reserve Battalion - Regulation Wing) in the Police Department, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, for being included in the main list attached to Ext.P2 ranked list. It is also prayed for a direction to the second respondent to enlarge or enhance the number of candidates in the main list attached to Ext.P2 ranked list by selecting candidates from supplementary list and to enable the second respondent to advise all the vacancies reported during the validity of Ext.P2 ranked list. In support the contentions as also the prayer for enlargement of Ext.P2 ranked list, the petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court reported in Ajayan v. State of Kerala, 2006 3 KerLT 854; Ravidas v. KPSC,2009 2 KHC 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned standing counsel for the PSC and also the learned Government Pleader contended that the aforesaid decisions relied on by the petitioners have no application to the facts and issues involved in this case. Accordingly to them, since the main list is exhausted the supplementary lists cannot be operated anymore and enlarging or enhancing the main list is also wholly impermissible in law, in the said circumstances.

(2.) A perusal of the judgments relied on by the petitioners would reveal that in all those cases the question to be decided was that whether enlargement of an exhausted ranked list is required or not. The question whether enlargement of the main list of a ranked list after its exhaustion was not a subject matter for consideration in those cases.

(3.) Ext.P3 would reveal that on 7.4.2011, 62 vacancies (59 NJD and 3 fresh) were reported to the PSC. Admittedly, pursuant to the receipt of the reporting of the said vacancies of candidate with Rank No. 530 in the main list, the only surviving candidate in the said list, was advised for appointment and thus, with his advice the main list got exhausted. The contention of the petitioners is that in the light of Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the second respondent is bound to advise candidates against all the above reported vacancies prior to the expiry of the ranked list and that is, against the remaining 61 vacancies as well. In none of the decisions relied on by the petitioners the question whether the main list of a particular rank list in respect of a particular post could be enlarged after its exhaustion was poignantly passed for consideration. Even going by the provisions under Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure PSC would be under an obligation coupled with duty to advice candidates against reported vacancies only during the currency of the ranked list. The purpose of drawing a supplementary ranked list is evident from Rule 14(e) of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. Rule 14 (e) reads as follows:-