JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of March, 2022 The petitioner is included at ranked No.2332 in Ext.P1 Statewide ranked list for the post of Junior Assistant/Assistant Gr.II, LDC etc. On 28.09.2018, the third respondent Board reported 35 fresh vacancies of LD clerks to the PSC. According to the petitioner, based on her rank, she is entitled to be appointed to one among those vacancies. In spite of reporting of 35 vacancies, the PSC advised only three candidates from Ext.P1 rank list. Therefore, queries were made seeking the reason for not reporting the other 32 vacancies. By Ext.P5, the third respondent replied that the 32 vacancies are not filed up in the absence of the directions from the court and also since, supernumerary employees are working in those posts. Thereupon, the petitioner made enquiries and came to know that physically disabled employees appointed to supernumerary posts of LD clerk and Office Assistants in the third respondent Board, based on G.O.(P) No.40/2013 dated 18.5.2013, had filed W.P.(C) No.36898 of 2018 seeking benefits equivalent to that of regular employees. That writ petition was allowed by Ext.P3 judgment, declaring that the petitioner's are entitled for all benefits on the basis of their appointment to supernumerary posts. Ext.P3 and similar judgments rendered with respect to supernumerary appointment in various establishments was challenged by the Government in writ appeal. By Ext.P6 common judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeals finding that, appointment of disabled persons to supernumerary posts was with the purpose of extending a benefit subject to certain conditions. It was specifically stated that in the Government order that the supernumerary appointees will have to remain in their posts until retirement, which indicates that the appointments made after a due selection process. The Division Bench held that the imposition of such condition does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India and does not amount to discrimination. Based on the said findings, Ext.P3 judgment was set aside. In view of Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation, requesting the PSC to advise her for appointment from Ext.P1 rank list. The representation having failed to evoke any positive response, this writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the PSC to advise the petitioner to the vacancy reported by the third respondent.

2. Adv.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the benefits granted to the supernumerary appointees under Ext.P3 judgment having been set at naught by the Division Bench, there is no impediment in advising the petitioner to the vacancy of LD Clerk reported by the third respondent. Attention is drawn to Ext.P10 interim order in W.P.(C) No.31460 of 2018 filed by two other candidates included in Ext.P1 rank list. As per Ext.P10 interim order dated 26.09.2018, this Court directed the third respondent to report 36 more vacancies to the PSC so as to reach before 4.00 p.m. on 26.09.2018, with a rider that the PSC need not advise candidates except under further orders from the court. Accordingly, the third respondent reported 36 vacancies (35 fresh vacancies and 01 NJD) vacancies on 28.09.2018. Thereafter, in the light of the submission that out of the 35 fresh vacancies, 3 vacancies were available for filling up, a further order was passed, directing the PSC to see that advice is made from Ext.P1 rank list against the 3 remaining vacancies. Based on the direction, advices were issued by the PSC. Thereupon, WP(C)No.31460 of 2018 was closed directing the respondents to make appointments based on the advice. Consequently, three candidates appointed by the third respondent, vide its order dated 29.07.2019. According to the learned Counsel, the third respondent is bent upon regularizing the service of the supernumerary appointees, as revealed from Ext.P11 counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.31460 of 2018. It is contended