Gireeshkumar T.M and others v State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 23679 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1GIREESHKUMART.M AGED39YEARS S/ONARAYANAN,THACHEDATHMUTTOLICHOLAKKALHOUSE, - CHELARI,VELIMUKKU,MALAPPURAM,PIN676317 2SRUTHIKORATTOL AGED32YEARS D/OE.PPRABHAKARAN,SRUTHILAYAORKKATTERI, - KOZHIKODE,PIN673501 3SOUMYAV.K AGED39YEARS W/OPRADEESHKUMAR,VELLATTUMMALPARANNUR,MADAVOOR, - KOZHIKODE,PIN673585 4AKHILAP AGED35YEARS W/ORAJEEVK,K.KHOUSE,KOTTAMPULAKKAL, - RAMANATTUKARA,KOZHIKODE,PIN673633 5DEEPAM.V AGED40YEARS D/OVASUDEVAN,MAIMBILLYHOUSE,THIRUVULLAKKAVU, - CHERPU,THRISSUR,PIN680561 6SARITHAA.V AGED43YEARS W/OSUBEESHP.K,PARAMBATHKUZHIHOUSE, - PANTHEERANKAVU,KOZHIKODE,PIN673109 7FAHADK.V AGED41YEARS S/OK.VSHAMSUDHEEN,KARUPPAMVEETTILMADAKKAT ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 2 ``` VALAPPIL,BLANGAD(POST)CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR, - PIN680506 ``` ``` BYADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHASANJEEV VIVEKVIJAYAKUMAR RIYATOMY INDUC.SREEKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARYTOGOVERNMENT,WATER RESOURCESDEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001. 2KERALAPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY,PATTOMP.O. - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695004 3KERALAWATERAUTHORITY REPRESENTEDBYTHEMANAGINGDIRECTOR,JALABHAVAN, - VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695033 4RIKHASUSEELVS AGED39YEARS D/O.V.KSUSEEL,VALIYAPARAMBILHOUSE,VATANAPPALLY - P.O,THRISSUR,PIN680614 5RENJINIR W/O.MANUB,VPXI/226-CKRISHNA,ELLUVILA, CHERUTHERI,VILAPPILSALAP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695573 6SANOOJAKK W/O.NOUSHADCEERAKATH,MAVILAKKADAV,MALAPATTAMP.O, - KANNUR,PIN670631 ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 3 ``` 7HIMAGLASSER D/O.LASSERGHARSHA,KOLLAMKONAMPLAVILA, - VILAPPILSALAP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695573 8SANDHYAU.S D/O.SASIDHARAN,TC-35/455,SAJINIVAS,ELIPPODE, - VATTIYOORKAVUP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695013 9SINDHU.D D/O.DAMODARANO,SREELAKSHMI,C14MYTHRINAGAR, VALIYAVILATHIRUMALAP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695006 10SHEENAA.S W/O.SUMANV.K,SHEENAVIHAR,PERINGAMMALAP.O, - NEDUMANGADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695563 11SHEFEERAPJ W/O.SAJITHKASSIM,PUTHIYAVEETTILHOUSE, - VATANAPPALLYP.O,THRISSUR,PIN680614 12SANTHIDEVIP D/O.MURUKANPILLAI,MPNIVAS,SECULARNAGAR123, - CHAMAVILA,KARIKODE,TKMCP.O,KOLLAM,PIN691005 13VINEESHOK S/O.THANKANO.K,OZHAKOTTAYILHOUSE,ARAMBATTAKUNNU, - WAYANADP.O,WAYANAD,PIN673575 14ABDULHADIA S/O.ABDULJABBARA,COTTONHOUSE,PALLINADA, CHITTATTUMUKUP.O,KANIYAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695301 15ADDL.R15:SIMIP.C,AGED43YEARS, D/O.P.S.CHANDRASEKHARANNAIR,JAYAVIHAR,PEROOR P.O,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686637 ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 4 - `16 ADDL.R16: SUNITHA SURENDRAN., AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. SURENDRAN PILLAI, SUJA MANDIRAM, KOVOOR ARINALLOOR P.O, KOLLAM-690538` - `17 ADDL.R17: SHUMAISY, AGED 34 YEARS W/O SIDHEEK. S, SIDHEEK MANZIL, VAYYANAM P.O., KOTTUKKAL, KOLLAM, 691533` - `18 ADDL.R18: ABIJA V. S, AGED 40 YEARS W/O B.S. ROSH KUMAR, 14/786, (13/256), SUNDAR NIVAS, MUKKILKADA JN, POWDIKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 587` - `19 ADDL.R19: LAVANYA V.R, AGED 39 YEARS W/O REYAS M.A, RIJAS MANZIL, KATTAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695572.` - `20 ADDL.R20: DHANYA U.S,AGED 32 YEARS D/O SASIDHARAN NAIR, DHANYA HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM BHAGAM, KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695552` - `21 ADDL.R21: DIVYA LEKSHMI U.R, AGED 34 YEARS W/O JIJU .M NEELAKANDESWARAM, KUTTIKADU P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM,691536 ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )` - `22 ADDL.R22: AISWARYA M NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS W/O SURESH KUMAR K.G., AISWARYA, ALIYADU P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695607` - `23 ADDL.R23: RAJITHA S, AGED 37 YEARS W/O AFSAL KANNAVEEDU, MAHATMA NAGAR -126, VADAKKEVILA, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM,691010` - `24 ADDL.R24: ASWATHI L, AGED 37 YEARS W/O SMITHIN L.P., GOVARDHANAM, VADACODE, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,695126` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 5 - `25 ADDL.R25: LISNA PATINJARAKKANDY, AGED 37 YEARS W/O NISHANTH P.V, NISHANT NIVAS, VELLACHAL, MAKRERI P.O., KANNUR,670622` - `26 ADDL.R26: SEENI K.K, AGED 38 YEARS W/O ELDHO JACOB, MATHENKUDIYIL HOUSE, CHALAMPADAM, KOOTTALA P.O., THRISSUR,680652` - `27 ADDL.R27: JYOTHI K. V.,AGED 41 YEARS W/O GIREESH V.A., ELAVANAL HOUSE, INCHIMALA, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682314` - `28 ADDL.R28: SABITHA R, AGED 36 YEARS W/O SATHISH, RAJ BHAVAN, THALUR, KUDALLUR P.O., PALLAVUR, PALAKKAD-678688` - `29 ADDL.R29: SURIYA T.A., AGED 42 YEARS D/O ANDIKUTTY T.C., THEVALAKATTUMALI, CHOWARA P.O., PRASANNAPURAM, ERNAKULAM-683571` - `30 ADDL.R30: ANJUMOL V.N.,AGED 47 YEARS W/O SAJI T.S., THOTAPPILLIL HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682563` - `31 ADDL.R31: SINDHU GANGADHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS W/O SAJU P.O., PUTHAKUDIYIL HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTOM, RAMAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-686663` - `32 ADDL.R32: LISHA KAMAR, AGED 40 YEARS D/O KAMARUDHEEN, NISHALAYAM, PUNNAPRA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA-688004` ``` (ADDLR15TOR32AREIMPLEADEDASPERORDERDATED 30-10-2023INIANO.1/2023INTHEWPC) ``` ``` BYADVS. ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 6 ``` M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI P.MOHANDAS(ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR SABUPULLAN GOKULD.SUDHAKARAN R.BHASKARAKRISHNAN BHARATHMOHAN A.HAROONRASHEED(K/190/2006) K.JAJUBABU(SR.)(K/116/1981) ``` ``` SRI.PCSASIDHARAN,SCFORKPSC SRI.PMJOHNY,SCFORKERALAWATERAUTHORITY ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 30.10.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).19463/2023,THECOURTONTHESAME DAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 7 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV MONDAY,THE30[TH]DAYOFOCTOBER2023/8THKARTHIKA,1945 WP(C)NO.19463OF2023 ``` ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1SAJITHAS, AGED34YEARS W/O.MURUKANK,KUTTATHARA(H),VALAMANGALAMSOUTH, - THURAVOORP.O.,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA688537 CURRENTADDRESS:VALIYARA(H),NALUKANDAMLANE, DESABHIMANIROAD,KALOOR. 2THOMASK.GEORGE, AGED31YEARS S/O.GEORGEVARGHESE,KANNOTHRAHOUSE,PAMPADYP.O. - KOTTAYAM-,PIN686502 3DIVYAT, AGED37YEARS D/O.BALACHANDRANT,THEVENKULANGARATHAZHAM, - NAGATHUMPADAM,OLAVANNAP.O.KOZHIKODE,PIN673019 4SMIJAK, AGED39YEARS W/O.ANEESHP,THENKULANGARA(H),MATHARA,P.O. - G.A.COLLEGE,CALICUT,PIN673014 BYADVS. KALEESWARAMRAJ THULASIK.RAJ APARNANARAYANMENON CHINNUMARIAANTONY ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 8 ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1KERALAPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, REPRESENTEDBYTHESECRETARY,KERALAPUBLICSERVICE - COMMISSION,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695001 2KERALAWATERAUTHORITY, REPRESENTEDBYTHEMANAGINGDIRECTOR,JALABHAVAN, - VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695033 3ADDL.R3:RIKHASUSEELVS, AGED39,D/O.V.KSUSEEL,B.COM,DIPLOMAINCOMPUTER ENGINEERING.REG:NO102549,RESIDINGAT VALIYAPARAMBILHOUSE,VATANAPPALLYP.O,THRISSUR -680614. 4ADDL.R4:RENJINIR, - W/O.MANUB,BSCCOMPUTERSCIENCE,MCAREG:NO: 100181,RESIDINGATVPXI/226-CKRISHNA,ELLUVILA, - CHERUTHERI,VILAPPILSALAP.O,TRIVANDRUM695573. 5ADDL.R5:SANOOJAKK, - AGED36,W/O.NOUSHADCEERAKATH,BSCCHEMISTRY,MCA REG:NO.103679.,RESIDINGATMAVILAKKADAV, MALAPATTAMP.O,KANNUR-670631. 6ADDL.R6:REMYADIVAKARAN, W/O.BINOY,B.COM,PGDCA,REGNO:103698,RESIDINGAT - PUTHUPARAMBILHOUSE,ULLIKKALP.O.,KANNUR670705. 7ADDL.R7:LEKSHMIKG, D/O.K.KGOPINATHAN,BSC.PHYSICS,PLUSTWOCOMPUTER SCIENCE,REG.NO:101761,RESIDINGATMOOVARKAD, - PUNNAPRAP.O,ALAPPUZHA688004. 8ADDL.R8:DEEPAPL, D/O.R.PRABHAKARAN,BSCMATHS,DCA,REGNO:101309, RESIDINGATDIVYAPEEDAM,P.VSOUTH,EDKULANGARAP.O, - KARUNAGAPALLY,KOLLAM690523. ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 9 - `9 ADDL.R9: HIMA G LASSER, D/O. LASSER G HARSHA, B.COM, DATA ENTRY AND CONSOLE OPERATION, REG NO:103524, KOLLAMKONAM PLAVILA, VILAPPILSALA P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695573` - `10 ADDL.R10: SANDHYA U S, AGED 44, D/O. SASIDHARAN, BA, PGDCA: REG.NO: 100250, RESIDING AT TC-35/455, SAJI NIVAS, ELIPPODE, -` - `VATTIYOORKAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695013.` - `11 ADDL.R11: SINDHU D, D/O. DAMODARAN O, B.COM, DCA -REG.NO: 100338, RESIDING AT SREELAKSHMI, C14 MYTHRI NAGAR, VALIYAVILA THIRUMALA P.O, TRIVANDRUM, 695006.` - `12 ADDL.R12: SHEENA A S, W/O. SUMAN V.K, BSC, B ED. MSC SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, REG.NO: 100653., RESIDING AT SHEENA VIHAR, -` - `PERINGAMMALA P.O, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM 695563.` - `13 ADDL.R13: SHEFEERA P J, W/O. SAJITH KASSIM, BSC, CERTIFICATE IN DTP ENGLISH AND MALAYALAM : REG.NO: 102495, RESIDING AT -` - `PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, VATANAPPALLY P.O, THRISSUR 680614.` - `14 ADDL.R14: SANTHI DEVI P., -` - `D/O. MURUKAN PILLAI, BSC, WORD PROCESSING HIGHER REG.NO: 101114., RESIDING AT MP NIVAS, SECULAR NAGAR -` - `123, CHAMAVILA, KARIKODE, TKMC P.O, KOLLAM 691005.` - `15 ADDL.R15: VINEESH O K, S/O. THANKAN O.K, MA (ECONOMICS), DCA, REG.NO: 103533, RESIDING AT OZHAKOTTAYIL HOUSE, ARAMBATTAKUNNU, WAYANAD-673575.` - `16 ADDL.R16: ABDUL HADI A, S/O. ABDUL JABBAR A, B.COM, COMPUTER OPERATOR AND PROGRAMMING ASSISTANT, REG.NO: 100771. RESIDING AT COTTON HOUSE, PALLINADA, CHITTATTUMUKU P.O,` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 10 ``` - KANIYAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM695301. ``` - `17 ADDL.R17: MUHAMMED ASEEM P, S/O. MUHAMMED P, BSC MATHS, MSC. COMPUTER ENGINEERING AND NETWORK TECHNOLOGY, REG.NO:103077, RESIDING AT POOTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MELAKKAM KURUVAMBRAM P.O, -` - `MANJERI, MALAPPURAM 676123.` - `18 ADDL.R18: SANDHYA P K, D/O. KUTTAPPAN, B.SC ZOOLOGY, DCA. REG.NO: 101594, RESIDING AT PUTHUVALLI HOUSE, CHANGAKARY P.O, -` - `EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA 689579. ( ADDL.R3 TO R18 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/07/2023 IN IA 1/23 OF WP(C))` - `19 ADDL.R19: BINI R, AGED 40 YEARS, THANDIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, -` - `MATTATHURKUNNU, KODAKARA, THRISSUR 680684.` - `20 ADDL.R20: RADHA C., AGED 48 YEARRS, SANTHA NIVAS, NEAR PENTHACOSTAL -` - `MISSION, KALLELKULANGARA, PALAKKAD 678009.` - `21 ADDL.R21: SHARATH K BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KAITHARAM, -` - `KIZHUPPILLIKARA, THRISSUR 680702.` - `22 ADDL.R22: ASHA RANI R, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. HUSSAIN M M ANJANAM(PADINJATTATHIL), MANCODE PO, KALANJOOR, -` - `PATHANAMTHITTA 689694.` - `23 ADDL.R23: BINDHU T K, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN.C, THEKKEY -` - `KOTATIYINDAVIDA MOKERI, KANNUR 670692.` - `24 ADDL.R24: BINSEENA V, AGED 39 YEARS, VALIYAKATHU HOUSE, KALLADASSERI` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 11 - - `PARAMBA, ARAKKINAR .PO., KOZHIKKODE 673028.` - `25 ADDL.R25: SOUMYA T.G., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SOUMYA BHAVAN, -` - `VELLANAD, VELLANAD P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695543.` - `26 ADDL.R26: SMITHA CHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, REVATHY, -` - `MANBIYATHI, PUTHIYATHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695526.` - `27 ADDL.R27: LEENA THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. THOMAS, KUNNEL HOUSE PUTHUPARIYARAM .P.O, PERIYAMBRA, IDUKKI -685608.` - `28 ADDL.R28: REMYA K B, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. BHUVANENDRAN NAIR, TC 52/686(1), KARAKKATTUVILA VEEDU, POOZHIKKUNNU, -` - `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695019.` - `29 ADDL.R29: SELIKKATHU BEEVI M M, AGED 44 YEARS, MARANGATTU HOUSE, MULAVOOR.P.O, -` - `MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686673.` - `30 ADDL.R30: REMMYA E, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRAN.K, KUTTIKKUNNUMMEL -` - `HOUSE, NELLUNNI, MATTANNUR, KANNUR 670702.` - `31 ADDL.R31: MEENU GANESH, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. MANOJ.S, AMBIKA BHAVAN, TC -` - `40/1518, MANACAUD P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695009.` - `32 ADDL.R32: SONA E K, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, THIRUVATHIRA, NEAR EDAKKAITHODE MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, PATTAYAM, KOLACHERY, -` - `KANNUR 670061.` - `33 ADDL.R33: ANILA A S., AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. SASI K A, APPAMALAYIL, MANAKKADU` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 12 - - `P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI 685608.` - `34 ADDL.R34: HASEENA K., AGED 36 YEARS, ANZAR MANZIL, PULIYILA NALLILA (P.O), -` - `KOLLAM 691515.` - `35 ADDL.R35: SHINI K A, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. ASHRAF K.H, UMANKULATH HOUSE, -` - `KOTHAPARAMBU, THRISSUR 680668.` - `36 ADDL.R36: PREETHI V V, AGED 43 YEARS, VALIYA VEETIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM ROAD, -` - `AZHIKODE, KANNUR 670009.` - `37 ADDL.R37: ANJALI M S, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. MURUKESAN N, MUKKOLAKKAL PUTHEN -` - `VEEDU, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695121.` - `38 ADDL.R38: RAJALAKSHMI G., AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. GIRIJAKUMAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, -` - `CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM 682028.` - `39 ADDL.R39: REJITHMOL S.R, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. SASIDHARAN, S R BHAVAN, -` - `KATTAYIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695584.` - `40 ADDL.R40: REKHA.K.K., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. SREEKUMAR.N.K., CHIRAYATHARA -` - `HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA.P.O., KOCHI 682020.` - `41 ADDL.R41: NIMMY JANARDANAN K., AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. JANARDANAN K, JEEJAM, POOKKOTT -` - `STREET, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670141.` - `42 ADDL.R42: RADHIKA L, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. MOHANA KUMAR.D.K., DEVADEYAM, -` - `AMBALATHINKALA.P.O, KATTAKKADA 695572.` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 13 - `43 ADDL.R43: SUMA S, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. PRABHATHKUMAR, PRABHATH BHAVAN, -` - `CHATHINAMKULAM, CHANDANATHOPE.P.O., KOLLAM 691014.` - `44 ADDL.R44: JISHA K, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. LIBEESH. P, THATHWAMASI, -` - `THAZHEMOOLAMVALLY, KOTTOOLI (PO), KOZHIKODE 673016.` - `45 ADDL.R45: BEEGUM BUSHRA N, AGED 38 YEARS, THODIYIL HOUSE, ALUMOODU, -` - `KANIYAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695301.` - `46 ADDL.R46: SOORAJ B S, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. SIVANANDAN V, KAIRALI, -` - `NARUVAMOODU P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695528.` - `47 ADDL.R47: ANITHA K P, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN. K P., -` - `KOLLAMPARAMBIL, PULASSERY, PALAKKAD 679307.` - `48 ADDL.R48: SABHIMOL S S, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. LATE SHAKUNTHALA, REVATHI, TC 64/1399(1), KANNANODU, KARUMALAI P.O., -` - `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695002. (ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R19 TO ADDL.R48 IN THIS WRIT PETITION VIDE ORDER DATED 25/09/2023 IN IA 4/2023.)` - `49 ADDL. R49. THASREEMA. K AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RAHMAN.A.P, KALLOORIYAKATH -` - `HOUSE, MUNDAPALAM, MUYYAM, KANNUR 670142` - `50 ADDL. R50 GANGA DEVI.S AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. RAJESH, SUJATHA VILASAM , THURAVOOR,PERUKAVU .P.O , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573` - `51 ADDL. R51 SINI.M.S AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SUBASH MOHAN BOSE, 'SREESAILAM' , ARAMTHANAM,VAMANAPURAM .P.O,` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 14 ``` THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695606 ``` - `52 ADDL. R52. SNEHA.S.S AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. SHYJU, SUSEELA MANDIRAM, DECENT JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691557` - `53 ADDL. R53 RAGI. C.S AGED 41 YEARS, W/O BINIL DAS, CHRIST BAVAN, -` - `CHEENIVILA, KOOVALASSERY P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM 695521` - `54 ADDL. R54. NISHA T DEV AGED 44 YEARS, D/O AMBIDEVAN, VARAMBIL, TC 10/2107, -` - `ARIKONAM, KANJIRAMPARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695030` - `55 ADDL. R55. SHIJI .K.G AGED. 44 YEARS, D/O GANGADHARAN, KAMMATTATHIL (H) -` - `,KALLETTUMKARA .P.O, THRISSUR 680683` - `56 ADDL. 56. DHANYA .N AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SUDHAKARAN, AMBAZHAKODE HOUSE, -` - `PALLASSANA.P.O, PALAKKAD 678505` - `57 ADDL. R57. REKHA .P.K AGED 42 YEARS, W/O PREEJITH B, SREE HOUSE, NAT -` - `STREET, VADAKARA.P.O, CALICUT 673101` - `58 ADDL. R58.MANJU .S AGED 41 YEARS, W/O AJIKUMAR, CHERUVANGOOR THEKKEKKARA -` - `PUTHEN VEEDU, KEEZHAROOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695125` - `59 ADDL. R59. NISHA ANTONY AGED 42 YEARS, W/O ANTONY SEBASTIAN, MADAVASSRY HOUSE -` - `MALAPPURAM .P.O, ERNAKULAM 682511` - `60 ADDL. R60. SMITHA V DEV AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. PRASANT, SHALINI NIVAS, AYAMKUDY` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 15 - - `.P.O, KOTTAYAM 686613` - `61 ADDL. R61. SINITHA . C.K AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. SHYNEESH, SHEENA NIVAS, KOKKIVALAVU,FAROOK COLLEGE, CALICUT- 673632` - `62 ADDL. R62. LAKSHMI PRIYA.S AGED 31 YEARS, W/O AJEESH .V .J, V.J .BHAVAN, -` - `PANNIYODE .P.O, KATTAKADA , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695527` - `63 ADDL. R63. SATHIKA C AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SATHYANATHAN, PADINJATAYIL HOUSE KUNNINU KIZHAKKE, CHERATTU ,KANNUR- 670327` - `64 ADDL. R64. SUBHA A.K AGED 44 YEARS, W/O BHONSLE.A.S, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE ANCHERY .P.O, THRISSUR- 680006` - `65 ADDL. R65. RAJASREE .M.R AGED 40 YEARS, W/O RAJEEV.K.K, KARAKKUDY, VALARA.P.O, IDUKKI -685561` - `66 ADDL. R66 PREETHI.V AGED 43 YEARS, D/O SANTHA, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE/ 385, -` - `KATTAPPURAM ROAD , AZHIKKODE, KANNUR 670009` - `67 ADDL. R67. ASWATHY .S AGED 37 YEARS, W/O BIJUMON .K.K, KOCHUPALACKAL HOUSE, KARIPALANGAD, ARAKULAM P.O, IDUKKI -685601` - `68 ADDL. R68. LIBEESH .K AGED 43 YEARS, S/O BALAKURUP, RAMATH KANDIYIL HOUSE -` - `THODANNUR .P.O, KOZHIKKODE 673541` - `69 ADDL. R 69. SREEVIDYA .M.K AGED 41 YEARS, D/O M K KUTTAPPAN ACHARI, MELEMKUNNATHU SUNDARI BHAVANAM, KODIYIRUPPU .P.O,` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 16 ``` - ERNAKULAM682311 70ADDL.R70.SITHARAPB AGED38YEARS,W/OKANNANKMOHANDAS,ASWATHINIVAS, - SNJUNCTION,PALLURUTHY,KOCHIERNAKULAM682006 71ADDL.R71.SEENATONY AGED42YEARS,W/OTONYJOSEPH,KATTIPARAMBILHOUSE, THEVARA,KONTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM-682013 72ADDL.R72.ATHIRACHANDRAN AGED34YEARS,W/OSUJITH,UCHAKKAVIL,PANNICODE, - CALICUT673602 73ADDL.R73.LEKHAGL AGED40YEARS,TC5/1557,PADMAVIHAR,AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKKADA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005 74ADDL.R74.ANJUMOLVL AGED38YEARS,W/OVINODKUMAR.T.K,THANNIKKALHOUSE - ANICKADU.P.O,KOTTAYAM685503(ADDLR49TOR74ARE IMPLEADEDASPERORDERDATED10-10-2023INIANO. 6/2023INTHEWPC) BYADVS. P.CSASIDHARAN P.M.JOHNY M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI S.SUBHASHCHAND BRIJESHMOHAN K.JAJUBABU(SR.) A.HAROONRASHEED D.SREEKUMAR(KALAMASSERY) SACHINRAMESH KEERTHISOLOMON ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 30.10.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).23679/2023,THECOURTONTHESAME DAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 17 ## **J U D G M E N T** These writ petitions are preferred by aspirants to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority. Their grievance in this writ petition concerns the probable list and the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission to the extent that it includes candidates who do not have the prescribed qualifications as per the notification to the post of LDC. 2. As common issues are involved, both these writ petitions are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and Exhibits shall be as described in W.P.(C) No. 19463/2023. 3. A brief conspectus of the facts is as under: a) Ext.P1 notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) inviting applications for the post of LDC. The qualification prescribed in the notification is given in clause No. (7) of the notification, which reads as under: W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 18 ## 7. Qualifications: (i) Degree in any discipline and (ii) Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of minimum 3 months (120 hrs) duration awarded by Lal Bahadur Sasthri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD) or from similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government. b) The petitioners, who had the requisite qualifications, submitted their applications and appeared for the examination. While so, one of the aspirants approached this Court contending that Degree/Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) is the higher qualification for the post of LDC and that he is eligible to apply for the post. A learned Single Judge of this Court initially stayed the selection process and later disposed of the matter, holding that candidates with higher qualifications would also be eligible for the post of LDC. While disposing of the matter, directions were issued to the PSC to issue a revised notification incorporating the qualifications and also to specify whether equivalent or higher qualifications should also be accepted and a chance to the eligible candidates be given to apply for the post. Though a review petition was filed by the KPSC, the same was rejected. c) Challenging the judgment, an appeal was preferred, which was W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 19 allowed by the Division Bench. Noting the stand taken by the KPSC and also the facts and circumstances, it was held that as no changes have been made by the KPSC with respect to the qualifications after the issuance of Ext.P1, and as the PSC had taken a decision that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to issue the directions as has been issued in the impugned judgment. It was also held that even if a person with higher qualifications had applied, the same would have been rejected when the scrutiny took place before shortlisting the candidate for the interview. d) Pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench, Ext.P5 shortlist was published. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid rank list includes unqualified candidates holding qualifications other than what is prescribed in Ext.P1. e) The petitioners assert that there were only 102 notified vacancies and 43 anticipated vacancies, whereas there were 1192 applicants for the above posts. If unqualified candidates who have qualifications other than what is stated in Ext.P1 are included, the petitioners would most likely be excluded from the shortlist. It is on these common assertions that the writ W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 20 ## petitions are filed. ## 4. The prayers sought for in W.P.(C) No.19463/2023 are as under: a) To issue a writ of certiorari setting aside Ext. P5 short list to the extent it contains unqualified candidates deviant from the prescribed qualifications in Ext. P1 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary; a(i). To issue a writ of certiorari setting aside Ext. P6 ranked list to the extent to which it contains unqualified candidates who have obtained Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) and such other qualifications deviating from the prescribed qualifications in Ext. P1, as unjust, illegal and arbitrary; b. To declare that Ext. P5 short list is liable to be reworked by excluding unqualified candidates and by including the petitioners in the correct place after such reworking: b(i). To declare that Ext.P6 ranked list is liable to be reworked by excluding unqualified candidates and by including the petitioners in the correct place after such reworking; c. To direct the 1" respondent to rework Ext.P5 short list by excluding unqualified hands, ie, who are not qualified as per Ext.P4 or otherwise and by including the petitioners in accordance with the marks obtained by the petitioners; c(i). To direct the 1st respondent to rework Ext.P6 ranked list by excluding unqualified hands, ie, who are not qualified as per Exts. P1 and P4 and by including the petitioners in accordance with the marks obtained by the petitioners; d. To direct the 1" respondent to issue a fresh short list after W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 21 cancelling Ext. P5 short list and rework the short list by including the petitioners in the correct place; d. (i). to direct the 1" respondent to issue a fresh ranked list after cancelling Ext.P6 ranked list and rework the ranked list by including the petitioners in the correct place; ## 5. The prayers sought for in W.P.(C) No. 23679/2023 are as under: i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and P6 and quash the same to the extent it includes the register numbers and names of candidates who are not having the prescribed qualifications notified as per Exhibit P1 to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority, by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari; ii) to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to publish a modified ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority, including only the candidates who are having the qualification notified as per Exhibit P1 and make necessary advises thereafter. iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent not to make any appointments to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority from Exhibit P6, who are not having the qualifications notified as per Exhibit P1; iv) To declare that only candidates who are having the prescribed qualifications notified as per Exhibit P1 are entitled to be advised and appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority. ## 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein, W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 22 after narrating the sequence of events, it is stated that after the Division Bench had rendered the judgment, the selection to the post of LDC in KWA was proceeded with and an OMR examination was conducted. On the basis of the results, a probability list was published on 3.06.23 by including the candidates who have secured 40 marks and above in the main list and subsequent supplementary lists. Since higher qualification is not barred, the qualification covered under Rule 10a(ii) of the KS & SSR is considered for the preparation of the probability list that was issued. By applying the above provision, candidates with DCA qualifications were also included in the ranked list. It is stated that if the higher qualification is in the same faculty, it will certainly presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification for the post. It is further stated that non-mentioning of Rule 10 (a) (ii)of Part II KS & SSR in the notification will not take away the applicability of the Rule. Since the inclusion of higher qualifications is permissible as per Rule 10 (a) (ii), the commission finalized the selection process by including higher qualifications in the notified qualification. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by additional Respondents, it is stated that as the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the final rank list, they W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 23 are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. It is further stated that the party Respondents possess higher qualifications than the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1. However, as the additional Respondents possess qualifications higher than that of the prescribed one as per Ext.P1, the principles laid down in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench will not apply. 8. The Writ petition was amended with an additional prayer to quash Exhibit P6 ranked list. The petitioners have also sought to exclude unqualified candidates by including the petitioners in the correct place after reworking. 9. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.19463 of 2023, Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.23679 of 2023, Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Commission and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Water Authority. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. I have carefully considered the reasons which W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 24 persuaded their Lordships of the Division Bench in interfering with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the earlier proceeding touching the very same notification. 11. I find that the stand taken by the Commission before this Court is contrary to the stand taken by them in the appeal filed by them challenging the judgment rendered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. A learned Single Judge had set aside the notification, and directions were issued to the Commission to issue a revised notification in the manner specified in the Rules, and also incorporating the qualifications specifying whether equivalent or higher qualifications could also be accepted, and it was ordered that a chance be given to the eligible aspirants to apply for the post. It is clear from Ext. P2 judgment that the learned Single Judge was persuaded by the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Jyothi K.K. and Ors. v Kerala Public Service Commission[1]** and also Rule 10 (a) (ii)of Part II KS & SSR. 12. In the appeal, which was preferred by the Commission, various contentions were raised, which is clearly at variance to the stand taken by the Commission in this proceeding. The contentions in the counter affidavit - 1 [JT 2002 Suppl 1 SC 85] W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 25 filed by the Commission in the earlier proceeding and which was noted by the Division Bench have been detailed in paragraph No.4 of Exhibit P4 judgment. The same reads as follows: ‘4. The appellant filed a counter affidavit specifically pointing out that the allegation of the petitioner that the PSC had decided to accept the applications of candidates of DCA qualifications is absolutely incorrect and denied the same and also submitted that candidates possessing equivalent/higher qualification could apply for the post by adding such equivalent/higher qualification in their profile as qualification possessed by entering the details of the same in the remarks column of the notification. That the above procedure was made known to all the candidates and that there is no bar for anybody with higher qualification to apply as the scrutiny of the applications comes only at a later stage. It is further stated that as far as the instant case is concerned, a candidate with DCA qualification is not entitled to be considered for the post and the words similar/equivalent bearing in Ext.P1 notification is only with reference to the institute from which the certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation should have been obtained. It is reiterated that equivalency of an institution is entirely different from equivalency of qualification and that since DCA was not treated as an equivalent qualification, the applications with DCA qualification were rejected. In short, it was the contention of the PSC that there is no change in the qualification made since Ext.P1 and that if anybody with DCA had applied, they were doing so at their risk as it was not an equivalent qualification, but there was no bar for applying as such since the scrutiny happens only later.’ ## 13. The emphatic stand was that a candidate with DCA qualification is not entitled to be considered for the post, and the words similar/equivalent bearing in Ext.P1 notification is only with reference to the institution from W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 26 which the Certificate in data entry and Office Automation should have been obtained. It was asserted that the equivalency of an institution is entirely different from the equivalency of qualification and that since DCA was not treated as an equivalent qualification, the applications with DCA qualifications were liable to be rejected. It was also emphatically stated that there is no change in the qualification made in the original notification. However, there is no bar in submitting their application as the scrutiny would occur only later. 14. The Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the contentions and its conclusions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment, which reads as under: 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the factual reasoning in the judgment is wrong as the PSC had never notified any change in the qualification after Ext.P1 notification and that candidates with DCA qualification had applied, but the Commission had already decided that DCA is not an equivalent qualification for the post in question and the equivalency mentioned in the notification was only with respect to the institution. It is also submitted that they had rejected about 590 applications received with DCA qualification. The direction of the learned single Judge was unwarranted in this situation as qualification as notified in Ext.P1 stands and no change was brought about by the Commission. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the factual aspects involved, we feel that since no change has been made by the PSC with respect to the qualifications after the issuance of Ext.P1, and as a matter of fact the Commission W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 27 had decided that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question, which fact was put in the form of an affidavit before the learned single Judge itself, there was no warrant for allowing the writ petition and issuing the directions impugned in the judgment under appeal. Even if a person with higher qualification had applied, the same would have been rejected when the scrutiny takes place before shortlisting the candidates for the interview. We also note that in the instant case since the very foundation on which the writ petition is filed, namely, that candidates with DCA were permitted to apply and was being considered for selection is found to be wrong, the petitioner could not have been prejudiced in any manner from his inability to apply as he was not qualified for the post in question. Under these circumstances the directions issued in the impugned judgment will turn out to be a futile exercise. In that view of the matter we hold that the directions were not warranted in the facts of case and accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge by allowing the writ appeal and dismissing the writ petition. 15. In other words, the Commission had stated before the Court that they had rejected 590 applications of persons with DCA qualifications. The Division Bench held that even if a person with higher qualifications had applied, the same would have been rejected when the scrutiny took place before shortlisting the candidates for the interview. It was holding so that the appeal was allowed, and the Writ petitions were dismissed. 16. However, the Commission changed its stance after the judgment W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 28 was rendered by the Division Bench. They have permitted persons with higher qualifications to participate in the OMR test and have included their register numbers in the probability list and included the name in the rank list as well. It is apparent that candidates who have DCA qualifications, as well as candidates with other qualifications like PGDCA, MCA, BCA Computer Science, BTech, B.Sc Computer Science, and candidates who have passed Office Automation from unrecognized institutions have been included in Ext. P6 ranked list. 17. The question is whether such action of the Commission in including persons with higher qualifications in the rank list is an exercise that can be permitted under law. 18. In **Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) v. Thandrothu Bodemma[2]** , it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment binds the party if the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis. 19. In **Makhija Construction & Engg. (P) Ltd.** v. **Indore Development Authority and Others[3]** , the Apex Court Court clarified the > 2 (1997) 2 SCC 552 > 3 [(2005) 6 SCC 304] W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 29 distinction between a precedent and the operation of the doctrine of res judicata in the following terms:— “19. …A precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case. Res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason but that there should be an end to litigation.” 20. In **Union of India v. Major S.P. Sharma[4]** , a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:— **76.** A decision rendered by a competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be “confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning”. ## xxxxx **81.** Thus, the principle of finality of litigation is based on a sound firm principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end to litigation. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such anarchy. **82.** In a country governed by the rule of law, the finality of a judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment and it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount to merely an abuse of the process of the court but would have far-reaching adverse effect on the > 4 [(2014) 6 SCC 351] W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 30 administration of justice. It would also nullify the doctrine of stare decisis, a well-established valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. The judgments of the court and particularly of the Apex Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled lightly. ## 21. In **Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra[5]** the ## Apex Court has laid down the law in this regard as under:— “When a Judge deals with matters brought before him for his adjudication, he first decides questions of fact on which the parties are at issue, and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes the matter up before the appellate Court.” In our opinion, if the parties are allowed to re-agitate issues which have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction on a subsequent change in the law then all earlier litigation relevant thereto would always remain in a state of flux ( Kalinga Mining Corporation v Union of India and Others 2013 5 SCC 252. ## 22. In **S. Ramachandra Rao Vs S. Nagabhushana Rao and** ## **Others[6]** it was held as under: 31………………….This doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be > 5 (AIR 1967 SC 1) > 6 [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1460] W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 31 ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata. 23. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is imperative to recognize that the Public Service Commission, having steadfastly maintained a particular stance in the earlier proceedings and vigorously objected to the acceptance of candidates with advanced qualifications, cannot justifiably alter its stance by subsequently admitting individuals with higher qualifications. Such a reversal of position, if sanctioned, holds the potential to reopen previously concluded judgments of the Court. This not only raises concerns regarding the abuse of the judicial process but also carries significant ramifications for the overall administration of justice. It is essential to recall that the Commission had unequivocally asserted before the Division Bench, through its counter, that it had declined 590 applications from individuals possessing DCA qualifications. The importance of this statement cannot be overstated. The Commission's rejection of applications on the basis of their higher qualifications by holding that such applications are not acceptable had persuaded this Court to pass a judgment on its basis. They cannot now take W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 32 a change of stance and accept higher qualifications. This would result in serious miscarriage of justice. Such actions would not only undermine the integrity of the Commission's initial decisions but also erode the principle of consistency and fairness in the recruitment process. The law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment binds the party if the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis. 24. In **Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi**[7] , the Apex Court had emphasized the injustice that is likely to be caused when the notification mentions a particular qualification and appointment is made disregarding the same. it was held as follows in paragraph 6 of the report **6.** It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such > 7 (1990) 3 S655 W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 33 circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. The observations above would apply on all fours to the facts of the instant case. In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. These writ petitions are ordered, and the following directions are issued: - a) The ranked list produced as Ext.P6 in W.P(C) No.19463 of 2023 to the extent it includes candidates holding higher qualifications like Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) and such other qualifications deviating from the prescribed qualifications is quashed. - b) It is held that only candidates who have the prescribed qualifications as notified in Ext.P1 notification dated 16.07.2012 in category No.345/2012 are entitled to be advised and appointed to the post of LDC in the Water Authority. - c) There will be a direction to the Kerala Public Service Commission to recast and rework Ext.P6 ranked list by excluding candidates who are not qualified and publish a modified ranked list for the W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 34 post of LD Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority by including candidates who possess the requisite qualifications as notified in Ext.P1 notification dated 16.07.2012 in category No.345/2012. d) The needful shall be done as ordered above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 35 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19463/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’EXHIBITS: ``` ``` ExhibitP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHENOTIFICATIONISSUEDBYTHE KERALAPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSIONDATED 16.07.2012FORCATEGORYNO.345/2012. ``` ``` ExhibitP2 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED01.08.2014 INW.P(C)NO.24279/2012PASSEDBYTHIS HON'BLEHIGHCOURT. ``` ``` ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINRPNO. ``` ``` 884/2014PASSEDBYTHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURT OFKERALADATED24.02.2015 ``` ``` ExhibitP4 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED13.06.2022 INW.A.NO.1501/2015 ``` ``` ExhibitP5 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHESHORTLISTPUBLISHEDON 03.06.2023BYTHEPSC ``` ``` ExhibitP6 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHENOTIFICATIONWITHRANKED LISTNO.588/2023/ERXIVDATED14.07.2023 FORCATEGORYNO.345/2012PUBLISHEDBYTHE KERALAPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION. ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 23679 & 19463 of 2023 36 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23679/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’EXHIBITS: ``` ``` ExhibitP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFNOTIFICATIONDATED16.07.2012 FORTHEPOSTOFLOWERDIVISIONCLERKINTHE KERALAWATERAUTHORITY. ``` ``` ExhibitP2 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFSPECIALRULESFORKERALAWATER AUTHORITY(ADMINISTRATIVE,MINISTERIALAND LASTGRADE)SERVICE,2011 ``` ``` ExhibitP3 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED01.08.2014IN WP(C)NO.24279OF2012 ``` ``` ExhibitP4 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED13.06.2022IN WANO.1501OF2015 ``` ``` ExhibitP5 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFPROBABILITYLISTPUBLISHEDON 03.06.2023BYTHE2NDRESPONDENTFORTHE POSTOFL.DCLERKINTHEKERALAWATER AUTHORITY ``` ``` ExhibitP6 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFRANKEDLISTDATED14.07.2023 FORTHEPOSTOFL.DCLERKINTHEKERALA WATERAUTHORITY ```