FOUSIA K. M. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd and 8th petitioners in OA(Ekm)No.679 of 2017 have filed this original petition being aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2019 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Ernakulam Bench in R.A.(EKM)No.15 of 2018 in O.A.(EKM) 679 of 2017. The petitioners along with respondents 9 to 16 in the Review Application, had filed the original application praying for directions to make appointments to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant in Ernakulam district. The petitioners had in response to the notification published on 30.12.2008 by the Public Service Commission (PSC for short), applied for the post and had participated in the written examination conducted on 12.09.2009. After completing the selection process, the PSC published the rank list on 20.04.2012. The said rank list expired on 19.10.2016. Annexure A1 in the original application is the rank list. The case of the applicants was that staff fixation was not being done for quite some time in the schools, resulting in several vacancies remaining unfilled. In the circumstances, the original application was filed seeking the following reliefs;

(2.) Earlier, on 13.10.2016, the Tribunal had issued Annexure A3 interim order in another application O.A.(Ekm)No.1338 of 2016, whereby it was directed that 112 vacancies in the post of LPSA (Malayalam) should be reported, so as to reach the office of the PSC on or before 5 pm on 18.10.2016. There was a further direction to the PSC that, steps to advise eligible candidates should be taken only after getting further orders from the Tribunal. On 09.08.2018, the Tribunal disposed of the original application directing the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education to report 25 vacancies to the PSC, in the proforma for reporting the substantive vacancies, with the date of occurrence of vacancies as the year 2016, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. There is also a further direction to the 4th respondent to take steps to advice 33 candidates in total, including the 8 NJD vacancies and the abovesaid 25 vacancies, by advising eligible candidates from Annexure A1 ranked list dated 20.04.2012.

(3.) Even though the cause title of the original petition would indicate that this petition is filed challenging the above said final order of the Tribunal, the petitioners are really not aggrieved by the said order. Their grievance is that the above said order was modified by Ext.P7 order dated 14.02.2019, whereby the direction to advise candidates to the 8 NJD vacancies was recalled. The order dated 14.02.2019 was issued pursuant to a review application filed by three persons who were not in the ranked list and a miscellaneous application filed as M.A.No.2547 of 2018, by the PSC seeking a clarification regarding the direction to advise candidates to the 8 NJD vacancies. The reason for the Public Service Commission to seek the above said modification was that the NJD vacancies arose consequent to failure of candidates advised as per advice memos dated 7.12.2016 and 13.2.2017 to join duty. Both the advice memos were after the expiry of the ranked list on 19.10.2016. The PSC contended that even though the vacancies against which the advice memos were already issued were vacancies which arose when the ranked list was alive, the NJD vacancies can be said to arise only after the expiry of the ranked list and hence, the expired ranked list cannot be utilised for filling up such vacancies. The Tribunal accepted the above said contention and passed the above order dated 14.02.2019, recalling the direction issued in the final order regarding the NJD vacancies. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal and for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to advise candidates for the 8 NJD vacancies.