BETTY P S Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, the challenge raised is regarding the correctness of the application of the rules of reservation as provided in the ks and SSR. The post of Lecturer in Sanskrit (General) in the Collegiate education Service is filled up in terms of the Special Rules for Kerala collegiate Education Service, 1994. According to the petitioners, 9 vacancies were reported to the PSC and the PSC issued notification inviting applications for filling up the vacancies on 29/6/2004. Rank list was published on 26/12/2006.

(2.) PETITIONER in WP (C) No. 14781/08 was included at Rank No. 19 of the ranked list and the petitioners in WP (C) No. 28499/08 were included at rank Nos. 20 and 21. All these petitioners are candidates belonging to ezhava community. According to the petitioners, there were 27 vacancies reported by the 2nd respondent and although candidates were advised, despite the fact that they had secured rank Nos. 19, 20 and 21, they were not advised for appointment. Petitioners state that the reason for not advising them is that the 3rd respondent was not working out the rotation correctly.

(3.) IT is stated that the main rotation started at MRI 31 and out of the 27 vacancies reported, 9 vacancies are set apart for issuing fresh notifications. It is contended that there is only one post reserved for dheevara out of every 100 post, Dheevara has already been accommodated at MRI 22 (LC) on 16/1/2003 and therefore MRI 50, the dheevara turn, cannot be reserved any more and that MRI 50 must be given to Ezhava in the absence of LC candidate. They also state that against MRI 12 (SC), an Ezhava candidate was erroneously accommodated on 29/1/82. It is stated that although MRI 14 (Ezhava) has been given to viswakarma, according to the 3rd respondent, MRI 54 (Ezhava) cannot be given to Ezhava as MRI 12 has been given to Ezhava. It is stated that if at all such adjustment is necessary, it is the Viswakarma turn which should be given to SC and not that of Ezhava. The petitioners also contended that MRI 28 was given to open competition candidate on 16/1/2003, but the said adjustment has not been remedied so far although there are atleast 3 candidates now presently available in the ranked list. On this basis, it is contended that petitioners were not advised on account of the fact that the 3rd respondent was not applying the rules of rotation in the wpc 14781 and 28499/08 :3 : proper manner.