Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, in terms of Exhibit P1 notification dated 29.05.2009, a special drive for recruitment of candidates belonging to the reserved categories was undertaken by the second respondent, which eventually published a rank list. Complaining of the delay in advising the successful candidates, the petitioners and certain similarly placed persons filed W.P.(C)Nos.21957/2014 and 24763/2014, both of which were disposed of by this Court WPC 29006/14 2 through Exhibit P2 judgment dated 23.06.2014 directing the Public Service Commission to finalise the process of selection pursuant Exhibit P1 notification and notify the rank list, advising candidates in respect of the vacancies earmarked for SC/ST category. This Court, in fact, fixed a time limit of three months.
3. Once again, complaining of inaction on the part of the second respondent, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, has submitted that the second respondent has taken all the steps to comply with the directions of this Court earlier in Exhibit P2 judgment and that the whole process will be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within three weeks.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second WPC 29006/14 3 respondent, this Court disposes of the writ petition recording the undertaking of the second respondent that it shall ensure completion of the entire process as has been directed in Exhibit P2 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv