Disposed

Unni Kunnarath v. Kpsc

Kerala HC27 Jul 2010WP(C)/2315/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 1st respondent to investigate the petitioner's claim that communal rotation was not properly complied with in the advice list. The Court held that if the claim is factually correct, consequential benefits should be granted unless displacement of serving personnel arises. The writ petition was disposed of on these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to investigate the pleadings and decide correctness; directed that if correct, no displacement of existing employees can result, otherwise no benefits to be granted.

Unni Kunnarath Vs Kpsc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 2315 of 2004(A)

PETITIONER(S):

UNNI KUNNARATH,

BLATHUR, KALLIAD P.O., KANNUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TRICHUR.

¶16

ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1,R2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.2315/2004

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF RANKED LIST WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 30/06/2003. P2 : COPY OF ADVICE LIST SHOWING THE ORDER AND NAME OF THE CANDIDATES ADVISED BY THE PSC. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/01/2003 ISSUED BY R3. //TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.2315 of 2004 (A)

¶25

Dated, this the 27^th day of July, 2010

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner was included in the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission on 30/06/2000 for appointment to the post of Male Warden in the Department of Jail. The validity of the list was to expire on 29/06/2004. But the same was extended and the ranked list expired on 05/01/2004.

¶28

The petitioner's case is that while advising candidates,

¶29

communal rotation has not been properly complied with. The relevant pleadings in the writ petition reads as under :-

¶30

“-----. That is to say the person with rank No.104 or 108 ought to have been shown as person No.52 in the advice seniority list and assigned seniority accordingly. But the person who is now shown as Sl.No.52 is a Latin catholic and not an OBC. Actually person No.104 in Ext.P1 ought to have been placed as person No.52 in Ext.P2 list. But person No.108 in Ext.P1 was advised and appointed in the open category and not in the OBC category. Therefore had person No.104 in Ext.P1 been assigned position No.52 in Ext.P2, the petitioner would have been advised as the next person belonging to OBC category after 104 in Ext.P1. If a candidate in OBC category was placed as Sl.no.52 in Ext.P2, person No.104 in Ext.P1 would have been placed as No.94 in Ext.P1. The next turn after 94 would be for the petitioner. Thus

¶31

WP(C) No.2315/2004

¶32

-2-

¶33

the violation of the communal rotation as resulted in denial of advice and appointment to the petitioner.”

¶34

The only answer stated in the counter affidavit filed by

¶35

the respondents is that communal benefits are granted to the candidates based on the claim made by them in the application and the proof produced before the Commission, and candidates cannot be advised based on the blad averment of the petitioner.

¶36

In my view, this answer is too vague. Therefore, I direct the 1^st respondent to consider the aforesaid pleadings in the writ petition and decide as to whether it is factually correct. It is made clear that even if it is found that the averment of the petitioner is factually correct, granting of consequential benefit shall not result in displacement of anybody now in service and it is made clear that if such a situation arises, it will be open to the respondents to decline consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶37

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶39

Unni Kunnarath v. Kpsc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unni Kunnarath v. Kpsc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.I.Ashokan Vs Dr.Sharmilla Mary Joseph

Tessy Mathai Vs Bini.N.S

P. Geethakumari Vs State of Kerala

T.R.Savinna Vs Dr.P.K.Jameela

Mohammedali Vs State of Kerala

Thamarassery Grama Panchayath Vs K.C.Abdul Latheef and Others