RESMI S.PALAN Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a person who possesses all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as a Stenographer in public service. Based on Ext.P1 notification issued by the 1st respondent dtd. 29/5/2015, inviting applications for Stenographers in various public services and Public Undertakings, the petitioner submitted an application. On the basis of the selection process conducted by the 1st respondent, Ext.P2 rank list was prepared, wherein, the petitioner secured rank no.3. The 4th respondent herein was rank no.9. Based on the rank the petitioner to secure, the 1st respondent advised the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, which is a public sector undertaking. Ext.P5 is the advice so made and Ext.P6 is the appointment chart of the Public Service Commission. However, despite Ext.P5 advice, the 3rd respondent did not issue an appointment order to the petitioner. On enquiry with the 3rd respondent regarding non-issuance of the appointment order, it was informed that the vacancy to which the petitioner was advised, does not exist and the 3rd respondent does not have any intention to issue any appointment order to fill up the said vacancy. In the meantime, the 4th respondent was given appointment in the 2nd respondent Corporation, under Other Backward Community category. The writ petition was submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, seeking appointment on the basis of Ext.P5 advice and also challenging appointment given to the 4th respondent in the 2nd respondent institution.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought in this writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, the advice has been made as evidenced by Ext.P5, to appoint the petitioner in the 3rd respondent establishment, on the basis of a communication issued by the 3rd respondent reporting vacancies. It was also averred that, after reporting the vacancy, the 3rd respondent could not have taken a stand that the vacancy does not exists. An additional counter affidavit was also submitted by reiterating aforesaid aspect and also producing the documents to substantiate their contentions.