High Court Kerala High Court

N.K.Subramanian vs Kerala State Sports Council on 12 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
N.K.Subramanian vs Kerala State Sports Council on 12 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35456 of 2008(U)


1. N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, NARATTIL HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)

                For Respondent  :PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,SC,SPORTS COUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :12/02/2009

 O R D E R
               T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                      -------------------------
                 W.P ( C) No.35456 of 2008
                      --------------------------
             Dated this the 12th February,2009

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was an applicant to the post of Athletic

Coach for which the respondent Sports Council by

Exhibit-P1 notification invited the applications. A written

test was conducted on 30.12.2007. Since he was

successful in the written examination he was admitted to

the physical efficiency test held between 2nd and 4th

April,2008. The interview for Coaches in Athletics was

held on 8.4.2008. Pursuant to Exhibit-P2 memo, he

appeared for the interview.

2. The complaint raised in this writ petition is that

in spite of expiry of eight months so far the rank list has

not been finalised and further action for appointment to

the notified posts has not been taken by them. It is also

alleged that temporary appointments have been made in

the meanwhile.

3. Respondent has filed a statement. I heard

learned standing counsel for the respondent also. As

W.P ( C) No.35456 of 2008
2

regards the reason for the delay, it is stated in paragraph 8

of the statement that there were some writ petitions filed

by persons who failed to qualify in the written test and

therefore the Council could not finalise the matter and

they were awaiting orders in the said writ petitions. It is

also submitted that there were resource constraints which

compelled them to postpone the finalisation of

appointments. It is contended that merely because of the

notification has been issued, petitioner cannot seek

appointment as such.

4. In view of the fact that already a notification has

been issued and all the steps in the selection of candidates

have been completed, there is no reason as to why the

further action in the matter should be kept pending.

Therefore, the further actions for publication of rank list

may be finalised within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.35456 of 2008
3

W.P ( C) No.35456 of 2008
4