Disposed

Salim P.B. v. the Director of Public Instructions

Kerala HC14 Aug 2009WP(C)/4538/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged failure to report vacancies to fill his rank as L.P.S.A. Court held no direction on reporting more vacancies; if direct recruitment vacancies exist after future staff fixation, they must be reported before rank list expiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with direction that any future direct recruitment vacancies must be reported before expiry of the ranked list.

Salim P.B. Vs the Director of Public… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 4538 of 2009(M) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

SALIM P.B.,VALLAKODE HOUSE,ULLANNOOR P.O KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

THE DISTRICT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695004.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI A.J.VARGHESE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶17

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.4538/2009-M

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2009

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner has been included in the ranked list for appointment as L.P.S.A (Malayalam) in Pathanamthitta District. The rank list was brought into force from 01/11/2006. The petitioner is rank No.10 in supplementary list in Ezhava category. The ranked list is due to expire on 31/10/2009. The complaint raised in the writ petition is that available vacancies have not been reported for filling up from the ranked list.

¶21

The second respondent has filed a statement as directed by this Court. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has also been filed. It is pointed out that the cadre strength of L.P.S.A in Pathanamthitta District is 836 out of which 624 posts are occupied by the P.S.C hands. There is a shortage in the categories of inter district transfer and other quota. 14 vacancies are due for NCA turn and there are vacancies that are set apart for physically handicapped persons also. It is further pointed out that out of 27 vacancies, 14 vacancies could not be filled up due to the non availability of NCA candidates and therefore, the said vacancies cannot be filled up by making direct recruitment. 10 vacancies are earmarked for physically handicapped

¶22

W.P.(C). No.4538/2009

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

candidates and three for Inter District Transfers. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also.

¶25

In the light of the facts revealed from the counter affidavit, no direction can be issued to report any more vacancies.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.29568/2007, wherein some of the candidates included in the ranked list for H.S.A (English) in Ernakulam District approached this Court seeking various directions. Ultimately, this Court issued a direction that the vacancies if any, set apart for direct recruitment after finalisation of the staff fixation order for 2008-2009, will also be reported to the P.S.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a similar direction in this writ petition.

¶27

In view of the above, if any vacancy is available in the quota of direct recruitment, even after the staff fixation is finalised for the year 20092010, that will have to be reported before the expiry of the ranked list. The same can be done in accordance with the Rules also. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed.

¶28

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶29

Salim P.B. v. the Director of Public Instructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim P.B. v. the Director of Public Instructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renjith Reghunath Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Theresa Junee Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Koyadan Meenakshi Vs Union of India

M.Satheesh Kumar Vs Smt.P.R.Anitha

V.Kausallya Vs the Director, Sc/St Development Corporat

Gopakumar.C. Vs Institute of Human Resources Development