K. M. Joseph, J. The petitioners are applicants in R.A. No.26/2013 in T.A. No.5341/2012. The Public Service Commission invited application to the post of Live Stock Inspector Gr.II/Paultry Assistant/Milk Recorder/Store Keeper/Enumerator. As per the notification, 10% of the total post was reserved for Ex- Servicemen and their dependents. A Rank list was published by the Public Service Commission. 170 vacancies were reported and 5 vacancies were set apart for Ex-servicemen and their dependents. It is the case of the petitioners that if 170 vacancies were reported, 17 should have been set apart for Ex-servicemen and their dependents. But, in this case only 5 vacancies were set apart for Ex-servicemen and their dependents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the writ petition before this Court and the same was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal closed the matter as infructuous. It is thereafter that the petitioners filed the review application, which was dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioners are before us.
2. In the review application, the Tribunal has noted that there was an interim order during the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. The said interim order reads as follows :
“3. There shall be an order directing the post of Live Stock Inspectors Grade-II in Kannur District to the additional 4th respondent within two weeks from today. Since the period of validity of the list will expire on 31/12/2005, vacancies as directed above shall, at any rate, be reported to the additional 4th respondent so as to reach that respondent before 31/12/2005”.
The Tribunal noted that the above direction to report the vacancies was an unconditional order and therefore, if vacancies were reported pursuant to it, the PSC would have advised candidates also. The Tribunal also noted that if the PSC has not done that, the PSC should do it without delay. The rank list expired on 31/12/2005. It is further noted that if the claim of the applicants were overlooked when their turn arose, they should have worked out their remedies by impleading those persons who were advised in their turn. It was found that the writ petition was never moved before this court and it was after about 8 years that the matter came up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal opined that due to efflux of time, no relief could be granted to the applicants in the Transfer Application and accordingly dismissed the same as infructuous. Finally, the Tribunal took the view that there was no error apparent in that decision warranting review and dismissed the review application.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Now we are in 2014, still far moved. Due to this distance of time and considering the circumstances of the case, we see that no ground is made out by the petitioners to seek judicial review of the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE dpk. /True copy/ PS to Judge.