Allowed

Shandeep Kakkarayil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2010WP(C)/3896/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a candidate included in a ranked list for a specific department cannot be advised for appointment in a different department. The Court quashed the advice memo and allowed the writ petitions, directing the PSC to retain petitioners in their original ranked lists.

What did the court decide?

Advisory memo directing appointment in a different department was quashed; petitioners to be retained in original ranked list and advised as per turn.

Shandeep Kakkarayil Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 3896 of 2010(J)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

SHANDEEP KAKKARAYIL, S/O.K.SREEDHARAN, KAKKARAYIL HOUSE, PALAYAM, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

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

¶15

3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH FOR R1

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NOs. 4050, 4465 AND 18123 OF 2010 THE COURT ON 22/07/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.3896/10

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE PSC DT 28.3.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 10.12.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH RESPECT TO THE WRITTEN TEST.

¶22

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED ALONG WITH NOTIFICATION DT 5.8.2009.

¶23

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DT 31.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE PSC.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123 OF 2010

¶28

==================================

¶29

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2010

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The issues raised in these writ petitions are common, and

¶32

therefore, the cases are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶33

WP(C) No.3896/10 is treated as the leading case.

¶34

Petitioner applied for the post of Draftsmen Grade II

¶35

(Civil) in Harbour Engineering/PWD/Ground Water Department. Ext.P4 is the ranked list, which show that the ranked list was in respect of the aforesaid department alone. However, by Ext.P5, he was advised for appointment as Draftsman Grade I/Overseer Grade I (Civil) in the Local Self Government Department. According to the petitioner, candidates like him who has been selected for the particular department cannot be advised for another department, and therefore, the petitioner states that Ext.P5 advising him to LSGD is illegal.

¶36

Although PSC and Government seek to justify the said action of the respondents, in my view, a detailed consideration of those factual issues are unnecessary. This is for the reason that this Court has already held that a candidate who is included in a

¶37

WPC Nos.3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123/10 :2 :

¶38

ranked list for a particular department cannot be advised to another department.

¶39

In the judgment in WP(C) No.2018/04, the PSC advised candidates from the ranked list published for the post of Junior Clerk in Travancore Titanium Products Limited to the vacancies in the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. In that judgment, this Court held that the PSC has no power or authority to advise candidates to the respondent Board from a list published for appointment in a different establishment. On that basis, writ petition was allowed.

¶40

Similar view was taken by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.15115/04 where a candidate included in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk was advised for appointment as a Warden in the Scheduled Caste Development Department. By judgment dated 30^th of August, 2005, this Court held that the candidate could not have been advised to another department or post. By virtue of these judgments, the position is settled that the petitioners are liable to be advised only to the posts in respect of which ranked lists have been published. In this case, admittedly, the petitioners have been advised for

¶41

WPC Nos.3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123/10 :3 :

¶42

appointment in the Local Self Government Department, which was impermissible.

¶43

Learned counsel for the PSC relied on the judgments of this Court in WP(C) No.30967/07 and 14019/2009. WP(C) No.30967/07 was filed by candidates included in a ranked list for the post of LD Clerk in Wynad District. They contend that the Government as per notification dated 15/5/2007 declared the post of Warden in Scheduled Tribes Development Department as equivalent to that of clerical cadre, and therefore, the vacancies of Warden should be reported and filled up from the ranked list for Lower Division Clerks. That claim was upheld by this Court by the aforesaid judgment. Similar was the facts involved in WP (C) No.14019/2009. However, a reading of the judgment show that, in these cases, writ petitions were filed by the candidates who wanted to be advised and the contention that the right of a candidate was to be advised only against vacancies in the department in relation to which the ranked list was published, was not considered by this Court. Therefore, these judgments do not improve the case of the PSC.

¶44

Thus, in view of the principles laid down in the

¶45

WPC Nos.3896, 4050, 4465 & 18123/10 :4 :

¶46

judgments in WP(C) No.30967/2007 & 14019/2009, Ext.P5 memo advising the petitioner is liable to be quashed and I do so. Petitioner shall be retained in the ranked list and advise as and when his turn arises.

¶47

The issue raised in WP(C) Nos.4050, 4465 and 18123/10 is also similar in all respects. For the aforesaid reasons, the memos advising the candidates in these writ petitions are also illegal and are set aside. These writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the PSC to retain the petitioners

¶48

in the ranked lists, in which they were included, and advise them, as and when their turn arises.

¶49

Writ petitions are allowed.

¶50

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶51

Shandeep Kakkarayil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shandeep Kakkarayil v. State of Kerala

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

Thomas K.Varghese Vs Mrs. P.M.Sushama

Zachariah P.Joseph Vs P.M.Ali Sagar Pasha IAS

Meenakshi Amma Vs Sree Kumar

K.K.Abdul Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

G.Sudheendran Vs State of Kerala

B.Gopalakrishnan Nair and Another Vs Registrar of the Co.Op.Societries and