High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
RATHI.K.B., W/O.M.PRABHAKARAN NAMBIAR v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 12470 of 2005(H)  RD-KL 14075 (25 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 12470 of 2005(H)
1. RATHI.K.B., W/O.M.PRABHAKARAN NAMBIAR,
2. SOFIAMMA M.V.,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.W.P.(C)No.12470/2005 & 37497/2004
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2007
Petitioners in these two writ petitions were included in the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Kasaragod district. Admittedly, the list expired on December 30, 2004. It is the case of the petitioners that the department had failed to report several vacancies which had arisen during the period of validity of the list. More than two or three counter affidavits and reply affidavits have been filed in these writ petitions. Ultimately, it boils down the question as to whether the assertions made by the petitioners are correct or the stand taken by the department is tenable. Undoubtedly, the issues raised by the parties are in the realm of facts and facts alone. Necessarily, such issues have to be thrashed out on the basis of the records available in the office of the department concerned.
2. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is the specific case of the petitioners that this court had issued an W.P.(C)No.12470/2005 & 37497/2004 interim order on December 24, 2004 directing the department to report 26 vacancies to the Commission. It is asserted by the petitioners that the above order was received by the office of the Deputy Director of Education on December 28, 2004 as is revealed from Ext.P2 in writ petition No.37397/04. However, the Deputy Director had not complied with the above direction. Resultantly, 26 vacancies as directed by this court could not be reported before the expiry of the list, viz. December 24, 2004. In fact, the Deputy Director reported 24 vacancies only on January 1, 2005. It is true that the department has consistently taken the stand that vacancies were not available to be reported. But learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No.595/1981 and submits that if in fact vacancies were available before the expiry of the list such vacancies ought to have been reported. The failure on the part of the department to report those vacancies should not be at the peril of the petitioners. Yet again, it has to be verified from the records as to whether vacancies were available at the time when the above W.P.(C)No.12470/2005 & 37497/2004 direction was issued by this court. This again is a disputed question of fact.
3. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to call for the records, scrutinize the same and pass appropriate orders in the matter in the light of the observations made above. This shall be done within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners or their authorised representative shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioners shall produce copies of the two writ petitions, counter affidavits, reply affidavits etc. along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.