High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
RENCY V.M. v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 30091 of 2005(G)  RD-KL 805 (19 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 30091 of 2005(G)
1. RENCY.V.M., AGED 31 YEARS,
2. JOSEPH.C.M., AGED 34 YEARS,
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY
3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.W.P.(C)NO.30091 OF 2005
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2006
Applications were invited for the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers (Senior) in Chemistry. The Public Service Commission prepared Ext.P1 rank list which contained the names of 218 candidates in the merit quota and 80 candidates in the supplementary lists prepared on the basis of communal reservation. Ext.P1 rank list came into force on 26.10.2004. After the rank list was published, request was made to advise candidates to fill up 202 posts, both from the merit quota as well as the reserved quota. The petitioners were assigned rank Nos.9 and 10 respectively in the supplementary list for Latin Catholic in Ext.P1. The Pubic Service Commission advised 202 candidates for appointment. From the supplementary list reserved for Latin Catholic, candidates upto rank No.7 were advised. Subsequently, request was made to advise candidates to fill up 127 vacancies more. But after advising 84 candidates, Ext.P1 main list exhausted and hence, the Public Service Commission W.P.(C)NO.30091/2005 2 could not advise candidates to fill up the entire vacancies. The petitioners now submit that at the time of the second phase of advising candidates to fill up 127 posts, their names were not included and thus they lost their chance of getting appointments. The case of the petitioners is that even in the first phase, seven non joining vacancies were reported and if those non joining vacancies were taken into consideration while advising candidates, they would have got appointments.
2. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed for and on behalf of the Public Service Commission. It is stated in the counter affidavits that on 16.11.2004, 202 candidates were advised from Ext.P1 rank list and later as per letter dated 21.5.2005 127 vacancies were also reported and the list got exhausted on 12.7.2005 after advising 84 candidates and hence candidates from the supplementary lists could not be advised. Therefore, according to the third respondent, the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable in the light of the reasons stated in the counter affidavits. But this Court is anxious to W.P.(C)NO.30091/2005 3 caution the Public Service Commission that while preparing rank lists, the number of candidates in the rank lists should be double or at least more than one half of the vacancies reported. The procedure now followed by the Public Service Commission while preparing rank lists is not conducive. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.