Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
W.A. NO.1638 OF 2006 (D)
D.D. 11.4.2007
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.R.Raman &
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Antony Dominic
The Kerala P.S.C. & Anr. ... Appellants
Vs.
A.Divakaran & Ors. ... Respondents
Reservation:
Roster:
Recruitment to the post of High School Assistant (HSA) (Maths) - 4 th respondent ranked 3 rd in
the merit list Ezhava reservation candidate selected against roster point No.18, a slot reserved for
OBC by operating T.P.O. (temporarily passed over) as per internal guidelines – The grievance of the
1 st respondent ranked 6 under Ezhava category is that if 4 th respondent was selected against O.C.
(open competition) vacancy by virtue of merit 1 st respondent would have been selected against Point
No.18 OBC Ezhava vacancy – The Division Bench interpreting the guideline TPO has to be satisfied
at the earliest opportunity has to be read consistent with Rule 14(b) has held 4 th respondent-3 rd
candidate in the merit list ought to have been selected against OC vacancy and 1 st respondent ought to
have been selected against reserved Ezhava vacancy and dismissed the appeal filed by the Commission
challenging the order of Single Judge in W.P. 1258/2004.
Held:
Rule 14(b) of the General Rules prescribed that the claims of members of SC/ST and OBCs shall
also be considered for appointments to vacancies filled up on merit and where a candidate belonging
to these categories is selected on merit, the number of posts reserved for the said categories shall not
in any way be affected. The purport of this Rule is that if a candidate belonging to a reserved category
is included in the general quota by virtue of his merit, he is entitled to be appointed with the general
candidates and his appointment cannot be adjusted against the reserved quota.
Further held:
Kerala PSC
The guideline has to be read consistent with Rule 14(b) and if that be so, the prescription in the
guideline cannot be understood as one requiring the appellants to advise a reserved candidate included
in the merit list against a reserved vacancy.
Cases referred:
1. 1975 KLT 111 (F.B.) - Pulomaja Devi v. Gopinathan Nair & Others
2. AIR 1996 (SC) 448 - Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan
3. 1997(2) KLT 218 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Wilson George
4. 2001 (8) SCC 676 - Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. All India Council for Technical
Education & Ors.
609