Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1183 (KER)

Gunasekharan R. v. State of Kerala

2017-08-24

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SHIRCY V.

body2017
JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The petitioners are before this Court raising a challenge against Ext. P3 order passed by the Tribunal, whereby interference was declined with regard to the prayer made in the O.A. to cause Annexure A6 representation preferred before the first respondent to be considered and disposed of within a time frame. The crux of the issue is with regard to the alleged right of the petitioners to get advised and appointed as Police Constables. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were aspirants to the post of Police Constables (India Reserve Battalion-Regular Wing) in the Police Department, for which selection was conducted by the PSC. On completion of the selection process, the petitioners could secure a position only in the 'Supplementary List', having failed to obtain sufficiently higher rank, to be placed in the Main List. It is stated by the petitioners that, there were sufficient vacancies which were not being filled up and it was in the said circumstance, that they submitted a representation before the first respondent/Home Secretary. 2. The petitioners admittedly had not raised any other prayer, but to cause the representation to be considered. The legal point to be considered is whether a person placed in the 'Supplementary List' could aspire for advice and posting, once the Main List itself is exhausted. The Main List was published by the PSC on 30/10/2014 and all the persons in the Main List were appointed, pursuant to which, the Main List got exhausted on 16/10/2015. Once the Main List is exhausted, whether there could be any independent existence for Supplementary List, was a point considered by the Apex Court and the law stands declared in crystal clear terms, as per the verdict in NSS v. Kerala Public Service Commission 2003 KHC 1243 : 2003 (3) KLT 1126 : ILR 2004 (1) Ker. 394 : (2003) 12 SCC 10 : AIR 2004 SC 834 : JT 2003 (9) SC 408. This being the position, no relief was liable to be extended to the petitioners under any circumstance and this made the Tribunal to decline interference and to dismiss the O.A. as per Ext. P3, placing reliance on the verdict cited supra. We find nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal, to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.