Disposed

Subramanian K.E. v. K.P.S.C.

Kerala HC27 Sept 2012WP(C)/7692/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition contesting vacancies in Government corporations, the Court directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to consider a fresh representation and pass appropriate orders within two months, reserving merit strictly for the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Subramanian K.E. Vs K.P.S.C. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/5TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SUBRAMANIAN K.E.,

¶8

PUKKATTUMUKAL HOUSE,

¶9

EDATHALA NORTH. P.O., ALUVA-683 564.

¶10

2. SREENADH. S., SIVANIVAS, PONAKAM,

¶11

MAVELIKKARA. P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 101.

¶12

3. SHAJI LAL.C.G., 'MAKAM', PARANDODE, PARANDODE. P.O., ARAYANAD VIA., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542.

¶13

4. SUNIL. O., ORUVINGAL HOUSE,

¶14

PARAPPANANGADI. P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 303.

¶15

5. SREEKUMAR. D., SAJI BHAVANAM, EDAKULANAGARA. P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,

¶16

KOLLAM DIST.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶20

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

¶21

PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶22

2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶23

3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶24

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶25

WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J)

¶26

4. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,

¶27

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. H.O., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20.

¶28

ADDL. R5 & R6 IMPLEADED

¶29

5. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶30

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶31

6. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES,

¶32

THRISSUR – 680 020.

¶33

*** ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.01.2012 IN IA. NO.771/2012.**

¶34

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SC. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB. R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC. ADDL. R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, KSRTC. ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT, SC.

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

rs.

¶37

WP(C).No. 7692 of 2011 (J)

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶40

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT GR.II/ CLERK/JUNIOR CLERK/L.D.C./CASHIER IN GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES/CORPORATION/BOARDS.

¶41

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART PUBLISHED BY THE PSC IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE.

¶42

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/10/2010 IN W.P.(C)NO. 22828/2009.

¶43

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 17/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC.

¶44

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶49

¶50

W.P.(c) No. 7692 OF 2011

¶51

¶52

Dated this the 27^th day of September , 2012

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following

¶55

prayers :

¶56

i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to publish an additional ranked list for the post of Assistant Gr.II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LDC/Cashier in Government owned Companies/Corporations/Boards in continuation with Ext.P1;

¶57

ii) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶58

The prayers are vehemently opposed by the Public Service

¶59

Commission stating that the averments and the allegations stated in the writ petition do not keep the right track of truth and it is virtually against the law declared by this Court. The learned counsel for the first respondent/PSC seeks to rely on the verdict passed by this Court on 04.07.2011 in W.P.(C)No.34344/2010 and submits that nothing further survives and there cannot be any remediable cause of action for the

WPC.No.7692/2011

petitioner.

The facts and figures given in the counter affidavit filed by

¶64

the first respondent as to the actual number of vacancies and the particulars of enlistment of the candidates are sought to be analysed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out that the version put forth by the PSC is not correct and that the correct factual position is something else. The learned counsel also submits that the issue decided in W.P.(C)No.34344/2010 is not as such applicable to the case in hand and so also is the case with regard to the law declared by the Full Bench in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission ( 2009(2) KLT 295(F.B.). With reference to the contents of the affidavit in support of I.A.No.12869/2012 and also the representation dated 15/03/2012 preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not intend to press for an adjudication of merits at the hands of this Court and will be satisfied if a direction is given to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 within a reasonable time.

¶65

WPC.No.7692/2011

¶66

¶67

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the first respondent or anybody else, if the grievance sought to be redressed in the manner as stated by the petitioner is acceded to. It is for the first respondent to consider all the relevant aspects including the need and necessity which occurred for the issuance of a fresh notification as stated by the first respondent . Ext.P5 shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, in accordance with law and the outcome shall be let known to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within two months. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the case and it is open for the first respondent to have it considered independently. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of I.A.No.12869/2012 containing Ext.P5 before the first respondent for further steps.

¶68

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶69

sv.

¶70

WPC.No.7692/2011 4

¶71

WPC.No.7692/2011 5

Subramanian K.E. v. K.P.S.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanian K.E. v. K.P.S.C.

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

M/S. International Merchandise Trade Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

P.C.Khader Haji Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

R.Nalinakshan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Cherian Varkey Construction Co.(P)Ltd. Vs Cochin Shipyard Limited

P.Ramadas Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar B. Vs Kerala Water Authority