P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.- Leave Granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides.
3. The appellant was included in a ranked list of lower division clerks for appointment in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The list was published on 24-1-2001 and on expiry of three years, it was to expire on 24-1-2004. On 19-11-2003, the Kerala Public Service Commission extended the validity of the list till 4-2-2004. The list thereafter expired. The appellant who held Rank 133 was not advised for appointment and only those ranked up to 60, were advised for appointment from the list while it was alive. It was in that situation that the appellant approached the High Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission and the Kerala State Electricity Board to advise her for appointment and to give her appointment after extending the validity of the list.
4. The writ petition and the appeal from it were dismissed following the decision that has given rise to the appeal which we have disposed of by a judgment delivered separately today, arising out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21495 of 2004 and No. 261 of 2005.
5. In the view we have taken in that judgment, the list having expired by 4-2-2004, and its validity not having been extended thereafter, no relief could be granted to the appellant on the ground put forward in the High Court. But, learned counsel for the appellant raised a new contention before us, which is not seen raised before the High Court. He contended that on 19-11-2003, the Public Service Commission took a decision to extend the validity of the list up to 4-2-2004, the list that was to expire by 24-1-2004. That meant, that the power to keep alive the list was exercised in time, but the same was not properly exercised in that it was not extended in terms of the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules. Learned counsel pointed out that under the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules, the Commission had the power to keep alive the ranked list which was about to expire for such periods as has been decided by the Commission, subject to a minimum period of three months or for such further periods but not exceeding one year in the aggregate. Learned counsel pointed out that on 19-11-2003, what the Commission did was to extend the life of the list only by 11 days and this was not consistent with their power of keeping alive the list for a further period of not less than three months but not exceeding one year. Therefore, it must be taken that on 19-11-2003, the decision was to keep alive the list at least for a period of three months.
6. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission could not give an explanation for the reason to extend the validity of the list only by a period of 11 days and not by a minimum period of three months. But learned counsel submitted that such a contention had not been raised and therefore he was not in a position to explain the circumstances. Though we see some force in the contention sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellant since we find that the validity of the list had not been extended from 4-2-2004 and three years have gone by, it would not be proper on the basis of the new plea sought to be raised before us, to interfere to grant any relief to the appellant in the writ petition even if it is otherwise possible. In this situation, we decline to interfere with the decision of the High Court and dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed
