Neeraj V vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

"

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash Ext.P1 and Annexures-A1 and A10 in Ext.P2.

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents commanding to appoint the petitioner as Binder Grade-II in the District Government Press, Wayanad within a time bound.

iii. To grant such other reliefs as this Honorable Court would deem fit and proper. And

iv. Allow the costs of the petitioner."

Heard Sri.B.Renjith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) appearing for the 3rd respondent.

The petitioner has been included in the rank list for the post of Binder Grade-II in Wayanad District Government Press, prepared by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission in pursuance of the selection notification issued by the Commission in that regard. The said rank list has come into force on 11.5.2017. The petitioner has been included therein as rank No.3. It is common ground that the said rank list after due extension after taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic issues has expired on 19.6.2020. From the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC it appears that, only one vacancy in the post of Binder Grade-II has been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC during the currency of abovesaid rank list and that the said vacancy came for advise and appointment in the open competition turn and rank No.1 in the list was duly appointed. Thereafter it appears that no further vacancies have been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC before the expiry of rank list on 19.6.2020.

It is now well settled that, advise and appointments can be made from the rank list prepared by the PSC only in respect of the vacancies duly reported by the appointing authority to the PSC during the currency of rank list, and hence advise and appointment is not permissible from among the candidates in the rank list as against vacancies which may be reported after the expiry of rank list. {See Vimala Kumari v. State reported in 1994 (2) KLT 47 (FB)}

The case of the petitioner herein is that, as per order dated 13.6.1997 (produced as Anx.A4 in the O.A. filed before the Tribunal), two posts of Binder Grade-II were shifted from Wayanad district to Thiruvananthapuram district and as per order dated 30.10.2019 (produced as Anx.A10 in the O.A. filed before the Tribunal), the objections raised by the petitioner herein/original applicant has been rejected by the appointing authority concerned. The case of the petitioner is that, the abovesaid vacancies of Binder Grade-II have been shifted from Wayanad district to Thiruvananthapuram district by the respondent on 13.6.1997 which is without any authority, and the jurisdictional competence in that regard to order the shifting of posts could have been exercised only by the Government and not by the Director, and therefore the said order dated 13.6.1997 shifting the two posts of Binder Grade-II is null and void, and that therefore those two vacancies should be taken into account for advise and appointment of candidates included in the present rank list which came into force on 11.5.2017.

The Tribunal has taken the view that the abovesaid contentions of the petitioner are not tenable and that the abovesaid shifting of posts have been done by the respondent Director in administrative exigencies about two decades back, in the year 1997 and that the petitioner may not have the locus to challenge the said order of shifting of posts issued as early as in the year 1997 at this late stage, and that it is exclusively within the domain of the head of the department or the Government to decide either to create, abolish or shift posts considering administrative exigencies, etc.

Sri.B.Renjith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner do not have any case that the respondent Director of Printing is competent to order for shifting of posts, which could have been done only by the competent authority of the State Government, etc.

It may not really relevant or germane for us to determine said issue raised by the petitioner for the simple reason that the said two posts which are the subject matter of shifting order or any other posts other than the above singular vacancy have been reported to the PSC before the expiry of present rank list on 19.6.2020. Hence no relief could be granted to the petitioner for the simple reason that no vacancy other than the singular vacancy has not been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC before the expiry of present rank list on 19.6.2020. Hence, no interference is called for in respect of the decision rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on 28.11.2019 in O.A.(EKM) No. 2030/2019.

With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand dismissed.