LAWS(KER)-1996-9-70

FEROZ KHAN Vs. PSC

Decided On September 19, 1996
FEROZ KHAN Appellant
V/S
PSC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent invited applications by notification in 1991 from qualified candidates for recruitment as Police Constables in the Armed Police Battalion. Pursuant to the above notification the petitioners applied. They were called for the written test. Subsequently they appeared for physical efficiency test, verification of physical measurements etc. Finally after the selection process was over, the first respondent published Ext. P3 ranked list of candidates for the post of Police Constables in the Armed Police Battalion (MSP) which was brought into force with effect from 25.8.92. The petitioners were rank Nos. 1407,1398, 1396 and 1419 respectively. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 belong to backward community. The second petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Candidates belonging to Muslim community to which the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 belong were called for the training upto rank No. 1394. The Scheduled Caste candidates upto rank No. 1386 were called for the training.

(2.) According to the petitioners 17 candidates for whom memos were sent by the first respondent did not report for training. Therefore if these 17 vacancies were reported to the first respondent, the petitioners are sure of getting memos calling for training by the first respondent. When the first respondent issued fresh notification for the appointment to the post of Police Constables which appeared in the gazette dated 5.12.95 (Ext. P4). The petitioners filed the present original petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to advice candidate from Ext. P3 ranked list to the vacancies of 17 persons, (NJD vacancies), who failed to report for duty. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 on 20.3.96. In the above counter affidavit the respondents 1 and 2 took the stand the petitioners were not advised as their turn did not arise during the pendency of the ranked list. It was further submitted that the 17 NJD vacancies were reported to the PSC only after the date of expiry of the ranked list. An additional counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent on 2nd August 1996. The above counter affidavit reveals the following facts:

(3.) Thereupon the second respondent took steps for working out the rotation in respect of 174 vacancies (157 plus 17). The section officer requested for certain clarifications regarding the advice of candidates who did not join duty. The clarification in this regard was received by the district office on 19.10.95. By the time the ranked list got expired. The additional counter affidavit proceeds to state that according to the procedure followed by the Commission in respect of NJD vacancies, the date of clarification is taken as the date on which the vacancies were reported for advice. Accordingly the candidates were not advised against the above 17 NJD vacancies. However advice were sent for 157 vacancies.