R. Praseetha vs State of Kerala, The District Officer and The Senior Administrative Officer

S. Siri Jagan, J.—Pursuant to notification inviting applications for selection to the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments under the Government of Kerala, the petitioner applied and was included in the rank list. But the petitioner was advised, by Ext.P2, to the post of LD Clerk/Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department. According to the petitioner, the petitioner participated in the selection to the post of L.D. Clerk and not for the post of Warden. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been either advised or appointed as warden. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P2 advice memo to the extent of advising the Petitioner as Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department;

ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 2nd respondent to advice the Petitioner for appointment as Lower Division Clerk in any other department restoring her seniority in the ranked list;

The very same question was decided by this Court in W.P. (C). No. 25965/2010, in which, I passed the following judgment:

Pursuant to notification inviting applications for the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments in Thrissur District. The 1st petitioner was advised to the post of LDC/Warden in ST Department. The grievance of the 1st petitioner is that petitioner has been appointed as LDC and posted as Warden which according to the petitioner is illegal in so far as the 1st petitioner''s selection was to the post of LD Clerk.

The petitioners therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P2 and P3 advice memos only to the extent to which those advice the petitioners for appointment to the post of warden in ST Development Department and to the extent to which those do not advice the petitioners for appointment to the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments in Thrissur district;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue advice memo to the petitioners, advising them to the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments in Thrissur district on the basis of their position in Ext.P1 ranked list;

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to modify Ext.P2 and P3 by converting the same as one advising the petitioners for appointment to the post of L.D. Clerk in various departments;

iv) 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.

Petitioners submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of a learned judge of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. The learned Counsel for the Public Service Commission stoutly opposes the prayers. According to him, Ext.P4 judgment has been taken in Writ Appeal No. 1713 of 2010 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the relief as in Ext.P4 pending disposal of that appeal. He also relies on other decisions of other single judges of this Court in W.P.(C). Nos. 30967 of 2007 and 14019 of 2009 in answer to the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that those decisions were also considered and have been distinguished by the very same learned judge who passed Ext.P4 judgment, in Maya Vs. State of Kerala, . The petitioner''s counsel also points out that in the writ appeal no stay was granted.

Having heard both sides.

I am inclined to follow Ext.P4 judgment which reads thus:

Petitioners were included in the ranked list for the post of LDC in various Departments. However, they were advised to the post of Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department as per Exts.P3, P4 and P5 advise memos. The contention raised is that, they having been included in the ranked list for the post of LDC in various Departments, they could not have been appointed in the ST Development Department as Warden. This case of the petitioner is fully covered in their favour, in view of the judgment in WP(C). No. 3896 of 2010 and connected cases. In view of the above, petitioners are entitled to succeed as they could not have been advised to Scheduled Tribe Development Department as Warden. Accordingly, Exts.P3,P4 and P5 stand set aside. Petitioners will be retained in the ranked list and will be advised against the immediately arising vacancies already reported.

Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed in terms of that judgment. That part of Exts.P2 and P3 contrary to the above decision shall stand set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 shall issue appropriate orders clarifying that the 1st petitioner has been advised to the post of L.D. Clerk within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This decision shall be applicable only to the 1st petitioner since the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second petitioner''s complaint no longer survives.'' Since the facts in this case are identical to the facts of that case, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the said judgment.