HASEENA T A Vs. K P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the cancellation of an advice by the Public Service Commission made against the reservation turn will forfeit the claim of a candidate for advice against the open competition turn is the crucial question arising for consideration in this case. Petitioner is serial No. 817 in the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servants in various departments in Ernakulam District. The ranked list was published on 29-1-2004. She was advised for appointment to the post in the reservation turn of Muslim in the Judicial Department. Ext.P1 is the advice memo dated 23-5-2005. It is specifically noted in the advice memo that the appointment is against the reservation turn. Accordingly the District Judge, Ernakulam, the appointing authority, issued Ext.P2 proceedings appointing the petitioner as Peon in the Additional District Court, Ernakulam. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty on the ground that she had not produced the original of the Non Creamy Layer Certificate. According to the petitioner the same had already been produced before another authority and she could not produce the original within the permitted time. Therefore, she requested the appointing authority to intimate the Public Service Commission that the petitioner could not join duty in the reservation turn owing to the non-production of the original of the Non Creamy Layer Certificate.

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner made Ext.P4 representation dated 16-8-2005 requesting for appointment against the open competition turn (general merit). In the meanwhile by proceedings dated 18-8-2005 the appointing authority cancelled the appointment since the petitioner could not produce the original of the Non Creamy Layer Certificate. Subsequently the petitioner was issued Ext.P6 show cause notice by the Public Service Commission requesting the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner did not produce the original of the Non Creamy Layer Certificate before the appointing authority. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply stating that the petitioner had already produced the original of the Non Creamy Layer Certificate before the District Officer of the Public Service Commission at Thrissur and hence she could not produce the same before the appointing authority. Petitioner also prayed in Ext.P7 that she, being 817 in the ranked list, may be advised for appointment against the open competition (general merit) turn. Without considering the said request, the C ommission issued Ext.P8 memo cancelling the advice issued to the petitioner against the Muslim reservation turn stating only that her explanation for non-production of the original of the Non Creamy Layer Certificate before the appointing authority was not satisfactory. She was not advised in the open competition turn.

(3.) Thus aggrieved, the writ petition is filed contending that even if the petitioner is not considered against the Muslim reservation turn, she is entitled to be considered against her turn in the general merit.