IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30920 of 2009(H)
1. SURENDRANATH A, ANJANGAD HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDARY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
...........................................
W.P.(C)NO.30920 OF 2009-H
.............................................
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
It is stated that the 1st respondent issued a
notification inviting applications for the post of Part Time
Sweeper. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He was
called for interview by Ext.P1 call letter. He was also
interviewed. Finally Ext.P2 ranked list has been published
where the petitioner is included as Sl.No.50. Subsequently
this writ petition is filed contending that the selection
should not have been concluded on the basis of interview
alone and that the interview conducted and the ranked list
prepared on that basis is illegal.
2. In my view, this is a clear case where the theory of
sitting on the fence applies. The notification itself specified
the method of selection. Knowing fully well the interview is
the method of selection, the petitioner applied for the post.
He subjected himself to the selection process. It is only after
the ranked list has been prepared in which the petitioner has
obtained a lower rank that the petitioner has chosen to
: 2 :
W.P.(C)NO.30920 OF 2009-H
challenge the ranked list. This is impermissible. Further, if
the ranked list has to be quashed, the persons included in
the ranked list, either all of them or at least some of them,
should be parties to the writ petition. That also has not been
done.
3. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to
interfere with this writ petition.
The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
cl