Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 525 (KER)

Jumailiya v. v W/o. Jafar Arafath VS State Of Kerala

2025-03-10

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, P.KRISHNA KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The petitioners are candidates from five districts who applied for the post of Pharmacist Grade-II. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a district wise notification inviting applications, and a common test was conducted. However, the ranked lists were published on different dates. 2. The following are the different dates of notification of ranked list; Dists No Name of District Dates notified Expiry 1 Thiruvananthapuram 21/01/22 20/01/25 2 Kollam 08/12/21 07/12/24 3 Pathanamthitta 31/12/21 30/12/24 4 Alappuzha 12/09/21 11/09/24 5 Kottayam 27/01/22 26/01/25 6 Idukki 12/10/21 11/12/24 7 Ernakulam 28/12/21 27/12/24 8 Thrissur 27/01/22 26/01/25 9 Palakkad 12/11/21 11/11/24 10 Malappuram 11/11/21 10/11/24 11 Kozhikode 12/11/21 11/11/24 12 Wynadu 28/12/21 27/12/24 13 Kannur 28/12/21 27/12/24 14 Kasaragodu 20/01/22 19/01/25 3. The Government created 250 Pharmacist posts, allocating different number of posts to each districts. This was done on 16.01.2025. By the time of creation of the posts, the ranked list had expired in ten districts, except in Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam, Thrissur and Kasaragod. The petitioners approached the Tribunal, claiming that they have been left out on account of delay in creation of the posts and that the KPSC should extend the ranked list. The Tribunal dismissed the relief sought by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners approached this Court. 4. Admittedly, these posts were created after the expiry of the ranked list in which the petitioners' names figured in their respective districts. The KPSC cannot advise candidates from the expired ranked list merely for the reason that, in certain districts, some candidates benefited from the fact that the posts were created before the expiry of the ranked list in their respective districts. The Government has also not chosen to address the issue with the KPSC. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no scope for interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, these original petitions stand dismissed.