Fillings for NJD vacancies from a rank list do not compel reporting new vacancies unless stipulated otherwise by law.

ORDER

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Review Petition has been filed seeking to review our judgment dated 6.12.2022 in W.A.1540 of 2022. By the said judgment, we had noticed the specific stand of Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (for short 'the KSEBL') and the Government before the learned single Judge that no vacancies had been reported to the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier/Assistant Grade II in KSEBL and that the mentioning of KSEBL in the notification that was published by the PSC was a mistake. We had also found that the PSC had admitted the said fact before the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge had recorded the said admission in the judgment impugned in the Writ Appeal.

Finding therefore that there were no vacancies to the posts in question that were reported by the KSEBL the Writ Appeal was dismissed.

2. In the Review Petition now preferred before us, the review petitioners have produced as Annexure-3, an advise list of the PSC wherein various NJD vacancies were filled through advices effected from the same rank list in which the petitioners are also included. The contention in the Review Petition therefore, is that inasmuch as the NJD vacancies pertaining to an earlier selection had been filled from candidates in Ext.P2 rank list in which the review petitioners are also included, the stand of the KSEBL and the State Government that no vacancies had been reported to the PSC for the purposes of the present selection, cannot be accepted.

3. We heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Sri.Navaneeth Krishnan for and on behalf of the Review Petitioner and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan and Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned counsel appearing for the PSC and KSEBL respectively. We also heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State.

4. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners we find that the instances of advises having been effected from Ext.P2 rank list to the posts in KSEBL cannot be seen as made against vacancies reported for the purposes of the selection that led to Ext.P2 rank list. The advises were effected towards NJD vacancies resulting from the previous selection notification. It is trite that NJD vacancies have to be treated as fresh vacancies ( See : 2001 SCC Online SC 23 – Indian Bank v. R.Jayasree ), and if such vacancies are reported to the PSC after the expiry of the parent rank list, the said vacancies have to be filled from candidates in the subsequent rank list. The instances pointed out in the review Petition, are cases where persons were advised from the extant rank list to NJD vacancies arising from the earlier selection notification to the posts of Junior Assistant/Cashier/Assistant Grade II in the KSEBL. The mere fact that NJD vacancies were filled up from Ext.P2 rank list does not mean that the KSEBL should now be seen as obliged to report further vacancies for accommodating the candidates featuring in Ext.P2 rank list. The stand of the KSEBL before this court has always been that they had not reported any fresh vacancies for the purposes of the notification that led to the preparation of Ext.P2 rank list. We therefore, see no reason to review our judgment dated 6.12.2022 in W.A.1540 of 2022 as we do not see any error apparent in the said judgment.

Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE