AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Gopinathan, J.—The appellants are petitioners in WP(C) No. 8674/2007. They, who have applied for appointment in last grade service in Kottayam district were ranked 55 and 57 in the supplementary rank list of Muslims published by the second respondent. According to them, advices were issued upto rank No. 54. Among Muslim candidates four didn''t join duty and yet another one had given Ext.P2 relinquishment letter. If substitutes were advised, the appellants would have got appointed. But no advice was issued. With these allegations they filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to advise the name of the appellants.
The respondents 2 and 3 contended that non- joining duty (NJD) of the four candidates were reported after the expiry of the rank list. Ext.P2 relinquishment letter dated 11-8-2006 was received after the receipt of requisition from the appointing authority on 5-7-2006. Since Rule 18(ii) of the Public Service Commission Procedure Rules prohibits acceptance of such relinquishment after the receipt of requisition from the appointing authority, substitute could not be advised.
The learned single Judge accepted the submission made by the respondents 2 and 3 and dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellants has no case that non-joining duty vacancies were reported before the expiry of the rank list or that the rules permit the acceptance of the relinquishment received after the requisition from the appointing authority. In the above circumstance, we find that the respondents had not committed any wrong to be rectified in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The learned single Judge was perfectly right in dismissing the writ petition. No good reason to interfere with. The writ appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.