Razeena Begum S.R. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933** **WP(C).No. 12701 of 2011(K)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **RAZEENA BEGUM S.R., CASHIER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE U (POWER HOUSE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** **------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTIRITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTIRITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTIRITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WPC NO. 12701/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **P1 : COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.11.2008** **P2 : COPY OF PROBABILITY LIST ALONG WITH NOTIFICATION DATED 21.12.2010** **P3: COPY OF RANKED LIST ALONG WITH NOTIFICATION DATED 28.2.2011 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** **JM** **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 12701 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th ] November, 2011.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner who is working as a Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short) has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “i) to declare that the PSC has got a duty to prepare a probability list and ranked list consisting of 150 candidates as promised in Ext.P1 notification; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3[rd] respondent to prepare an additional probability list and the additional ranked list by including all the candidates who appeared for the OMR test; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3[rd] respondent to prepare an additional probability list and additional ranked list consisting of the petitioner also for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer Electrical against the 10% quota for KSEB employees; 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.” 2. According to the petitioner, there is a 10% quota for the employees of the KSEB in the matter of appointment to the post of WPC 12701/2011 2 Assistant Engineer (Electrical). For selection and appointment to the said post, the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC for short) issued Ext.P1 notification. Though as per Ext.P1, 150 candidates had to be ranked, the PSC issued Ext.P3 rank list which contains only 87 candidates. According to the petitioner, the rank list has been published by eliminating a large number of candidates arbitrarily, by fixing a cut off marks. Further, according to the petitioner there are about 200 vacancies available now. In the above circumstances the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions commanding the PSC to prepare and publish an additional rank list. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent has in the counter affidavit stated that all the existing vacancies available under the 10% in-service quota were reported to the third respondent in time. Therefore the assertion of the petitioner that there are 200 vacancies available at present in the said quota is denied. 4. The third respondent in the counter affidavit filed has explained the procedure adopted, in paragraph 4 thereof. Paragraph 4 is extracted hereunder for convenience. “It is submitted that the number of vacancies notified were 67. The Commission received 1185 applications for the post in response to the WPC 12701/2011 3 notification. 1051 applications were rejected for various reasons. Thus 134 candidates were admitted for the OMR test conducted on 24-4-2010. Only 115 candidates attended the same. It is further submitted 96 vacancies pending with the Commission at the time of finalization of probability list. The Commission finalized selection on the basis of written test only and decided to include 100 candidates in the ranked list. Accordingly a probability list was prepared by including 100 candidates who have secured the top marks for the OMR test. A probability list dated 21-12-2010 including 99 candidates who got more than 34 marks was prepared, 6 candidates did not turn up for verification of certificates and application of another 6 candidates were rejected as they were not qualified for the post. The remaining 87 candidates were included in the ranked list, which came into force with effect from 28-2-2011. The ranked list exhausted on 18-4-2011 after giving advice to 87 candidates. A fresh notification will be published shortly to fill up, 10 pending vacancies and vacancies that may be reported during the life period of the ranked list.” 5. According to the PSC as per Ext.P1 notified vacancies are 67. However, 96 vacancies were actually reported to the PSC before the finalisation of the probability list. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the rank list should have contained the names of candidates three times the number of WPC 12701/2011 4 vacancies which should be a little less than 300. However, according to him by imposing a cut off marks the list was shortened by the PSC to eliminate eligible persons from the list. This according to the counsel for the petitioner is without any justification whatsoever. 6. The counsel for the third respondent on the other hand points out that the preparation of the rank list was strictly in accordance with law. After the elimination of applications that were defective and such of the candidates who had not satisfied the relevant selection criteria, the remaining candidates were ranked. The details of the selection process are given in their counter affidavit. Therefore, it is pointed out that there is no illegality in finalising the rank list with only 87 candidates. 7. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. As evident from paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent, though 1185 applications were received, 1051 applications were rejected for various reasons. Only 134 candidates were admitted for the OMR test that was conducted on 24-4-2010. The test was attended only by 115 candidates. Out of the candidates who attended the OMR test, 100 candidates who secured the top marks were ranked in the probability list. From the said list, some of the candidates did not appear for the WPC 12701/2011 5 verification of the certificates that was conducted. Therefore, a rank list was prepared with the remaining candidates. 8. It is submitted that the rank list was published on 28-2-2011 and that the list was exhausted on 18-4-2011. 87 candidates have been advised for appointment from the list. It is the case of the PSC that 10 vacancies are existing at present and that a fresh notification for filling up the said vacancies would be published shortly. 9. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been eliminated by employing a method of short listing after the OMR test. However, according to the PSC only a probability list of candidates was published of persons who had scored 34 marks and above. Since such a procedure is permissible, there cannot be any challenge against the same. 10. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the third respondent refuting the statements contained therein. Inasmuch as the number of candidates who had satisfactorily completed the selection process were only 100, the third respondent had no option other than to publish a list of such candidates alone. My attention has been drawn to the note in Ext.P1 wherein the third respondent has notified that 115 candidates would be included in the short list. Since the number WPC 12701/2011 6 of candidates who had successfully undergone the selection process were only 100 the third respondent cannot be found fault with for not having honoured their commitment in Ext.P1 by not publishing a rank list of 115 candidates. Since the list has already been exhausted, steps have been initiated for the issue of a fresh notification by the PSC. The counsel for the PSC also places reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in **Ravidas v. Public Service Commission {2009(2) KLT 295}** . Particular reliance is placed on paragraph 42 of the said decision to submit that it is not open to any person to insist that all the vacancies arising over a period of three years to be filled up only from one list. It is pointed out that the PSC has the authority to notify a fresh selection, in the present case for the reason that the list has already been exhausted. The challenge against the impugned action of the PSC has to fail, for the above reasons. Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 12701/2011 7