PRAMOD KUMAR V P Vs. DISTRICT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions concern interpretation of Rule 15(a) of Part II Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules (K.S. & S.S.R) as amended with effect from 02/02/2006. The petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos. 1125/2007 and 2243/2007 have been advised and appointed after 2/2/2006 which is sought to be cancelled by the Public Service Commission (shortly the 'P.S.C') in the light of the amendment which is effective from 02/02/2006. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 11329/2011 seeks appointment in the light of inclusion of his name in the ranked list published for NCA (No Candidate Available) vacancies. Since common questions have been raised, these writ petitions are disposed of together. The facts of these cases are as follows:

(2.) Ext.P4 is the show cause notice issued by the Commission conveying the proposal to cancel his advise. Reliance is placed on the amendment of the Rules under K.S & S.S.R which is effective from 02/02/2006.

(3.) The proposal for cancellation is on the basis that the petitioner was actually appointed in an OBC vacancy. Prior to that, when turn of SIUC/AI arose, as no candidate was available, the turn was passed over to Other Backward Community and, accordingly, rank No. 2 in the supplementary list of OBC Smt. Sripriya C.K was advised in the order of rotation. When the next turn for OBC arose, petitioner was advised. When the Rules were amended as per G.O (P) No. 7/2006/P&ARD dated 08/03/2006 with retrospective effect from 02/02/2006 Smt. Sripriya was not entitled to be advised to the turn of SIUC/AI. Therefore, she has to be advised against the subsequent OBC turn as she was above the petitioner in the ranked list and the petitioner was not entitled to be advised against the OBC turn. To this, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation as per Ext.P6 and the substantial contention raised is that the vacancy to Which advise was made of Smt. Sripriya and the petitioner, arose prior to 02/02/2006.