Antony Dominic, J. The second respondent in OA No.1008/12 is the petitioner. The OA was filed by the 1st respondent herein. His grievance was that though he was advised by the PSC for the post of Lecturer in Educational Technology in the Department of Collegiate Education, he was not appointed by the petitioner on the basis that the post is a supernumerary post. In the OA, the Tribunal found that there was a substantive vacancy in the post in question and that therefore appointment should have been given. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC.
3. Even if the arguments raised by the learned Government Pleader are accepted at its face value, still, the vacancy in question is a substantive one in terms of the provisions contained in Notes (1)
OP(KAT) No.368/14
: 2 :
and (2) of Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR and such a vacancy should have been filled up only from the ranked list finalised by the PSC.
4. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is a candidate who was included in the ranked list prepared based on the vacancy reported by the petitioner and he has been advised by the PSC also. In such a situation, Tribunal was perfectly justified in directing his appointment. We do not find any substance in this original petition.
OP(KAT) is accordingly dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE