(1.) THE petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers in the Kerala Water Authority. They were employees in the lower categories in the Kerala Water Authority. For appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, 6% of the vacancies are reserved for employees working in the lower categories. 54% of the vacancies arising in the post of Assistant Engineer are to be filled up by direct recruitment from the open market. Balance 4% is quota for other categories, with which, we are not concerned in this writ petition. The Kerala Public Service Commission conducted a selection for appointment under the two different quotas simultaneously. Two separate ranked lists were prepared. But against the vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority for appointment from the two ranked lists, the Public Service Commission advised candidates on the same date. But in the advice it was stated that the inter-se seniority among the two sets of candidates so advised would be determined later. Subsequently, the Public Service Commission issued Ext.P3 order determining the inter-se seniority between the two sets of candidates, in which, the first nine vacancies were given to the candidates from the open market and the 10th vacancy was given to the departmental candidate. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that the Public Service Commission has no manner of right to decide the inter- se seniority between the two sets of candidates after the advice has been made for appointment. They would submit that the power to determine the seniority between the employees of the Kerala Water Authority appointed thorough advice from the Kerala Public Service Commission, rests exclusively with the Water Authority under Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules and, therefore, Ext.P3 is without jurisdiction.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY two separate selections were made for two separate sources of recruitment. Two separate ranked lists were prepared and the Kerala Water Authority reported vacancies to both lists separately. All what the Public Service Commission is expected to do, in such circumstances, is to advise candidates from each list to the vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority for appointment from the two separate lists. The Public Service Commission had no power to decide the inter-se seniority between the advised candidates after advice has been made. Of course, the Public Service Commission can certainly clarify the effective date of advice of a particular candidate. That is not what has been done in this case. The effective dates of advice of all the candidates advised from the two lists are the same. Ext.P3 does not deal with effective dates of advice at all, but the same expressly relates to inter-se seniority among the candidates advised from two separate ranked lists. The Public Service Commission cannot take upon themselves the authority for deciding the inter-se seniority between the two separate sets of candidates advised from the two separate ranked lists. In fact, when the advice is from separate ranked lists to vacancies reported separately, there is no question of the PSC considering advice seniority as well. In that view, Ext.P3 is clearly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed.