MAGESH K. Vs. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the applicants in T.A. No. 4219/2012 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short). They filed W.P.(C) No. 24970/2009 seeking direction to expand Ext.P3 rank list which was published on 5/12/2007. The same was turned down by Ext.P6. According to the petitioners, they are the candidates selected for the post of LD. Typist in various departments in Palakkad District. It would appear that those who got 54% or more marks were included in the short list. Supplementary list was also published. Only 154 candidates were included in the main list. The complaint of the petitioners was that in terms of the judgment of this court, more persons should have been included in the rank list. The rejection of their request was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, which was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has closed the transfer application noting that essentially the prayer of the petitioners is for expansion of the rank list published in 2007, which exhausted in 2009. The Tribunal found that owing to efflux of time, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioners are before us.

(2.) EXT .P4 is the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. It was found by the learned Single Judge that in the main list 37 candidates were included, even though going by the vacancies reported, there were 55 vacancies. The learned Judge found that the method adopted by the Commission is really faulty. It was also found that the even if the list got exhausted, that will not prevent enlargement of the list, as the three years period is not over so far. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P5 and directed the Public Service Commission to enlarge the list including sufficient number of candidates in the main list in the light of the vacancies reported. It was directed in the judgment that the additional list would be published within three weeks from the date of the judgment in view of the fact that the list would expire otherwise on the efflux of three years.