High Court Kerala High Court

P. Sreelatha vs The Generala Manager on 9 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
P. Sreelatha vs The Generala Manager on 9 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27756 of 2006(D)


1. P. SREELATHA, W/O.T.A.SURESH KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GENERALA MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THRISSUR DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

 Dated :09/01/2007

 O R D E R
                            J.M.JAMES, J.

                             -------------------

                        W.P.(C). 27756/2006

                             --------------------

            Dated this  the 9th day of January, 2007


                             JUDGMENT

The second respondent, Society, had notified

on 20.9.2006, inviting candidates to appear for the

examination to the post of Junior Clerks. The writ

petitioner was one of the applicants. However, the writ

petitioner submits that no subjects were prescribed for

conducting the test and the test was conducted for the

purpose of appointing another candidate by name Shaijan,

a close relative of the Deputy Registrar of the Industries

Department.

2. An interim order was passed by this Court,

restraining the second respondent from conducting the

test. However, the test was conducted by an outside

agency, which is not a party in this writ petition.

Therefore, the order dated 20.10.2006 was not served on

the outside agency, who conducted the test. Accordingly,

the written test was conducted on 21.10.2006.

W.P.(C).27756/2006

2

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondents that sixty candidates had appeared for the

test. However, the continued process, including the

interview, is not conducted because of the pendency of

the writ petition.

4. During the hearing, it is submitted that the

said Shaijan had not appeared for the test and he

resigned from the employment, under the second

respondent.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the

materials that are placed before me, I dispose of this

writ petition with the following directions:-

(a). The second respondent shall conduct a

separate written test for the writ petitioner on

14.1.2007 at 10.00 a.m., at the office of the

second respondent, Society.

(b). The duration of the written test and the

syllabus for the test, shall be as same as the test

conducted, in respect of the other sixty

candidates, who had appeared for the

W.P.(C).27756/2006

3

examination on 21.10.2006, of course the

questions being different.

(c). The result of the written test shall be

published in such a way that the writ petitioner

will have an opportunity to take part in the

interview, if found otherwise eligible, along with

other candidates, who had appeared in the

earlier written test and found eligible.

(d).The second respondent is free to conduct the

interview of the prospective candidates, after

the written test of the writ petitioner is

completed as directed above, and proceed with

the matter as per law, including the

appointments, without waiting for further

directions from this Court.

J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs