IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10043 of 2009(A)
1. BABU RAJAN.K. S/O.KUMARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
... Respondent
2. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD.
3. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.VENUGOPAL
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/05/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P.(C) No. 10043 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri. K. Anand,
the learned standing counsel appearing for the second
respondent and Sri. Murali Purushothaman, the learned
counsel appearing for the third respondent. When the writ
petition was called upon for hearing today, there was no
representation for the petitioner.
2. Sri K.Anand, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the second respondent submits that the
petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking
appointment as Mazdoor, that the second respondent
resisted the said writ petition contending, inter alia, that
the petitioner was over aged as on 01.01.2004, that the said
disability continues to exist and that the second respondent
has not taken steps to appoint Mazdoors from the open
W.P.(C) 10043/09 -2-
market. The learned standing counsel also submits that
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of
by Ext. P8 judgment with the direction that petition’s
candidature would also be considered as and when
vacancies arise, if he applies pursuant to the notification
issued by the second respondent, if he is otherwise eligible.
The learned standing counsel further submits that the
second respondent has not so far taken steps to issue a
notification inviting applications for appointment of
Mazdoors from the open market and that the petitioner has
no cause of action.
On going through the pleadings and after hearing
the submissions made at the Bar by the learned standing
counsel for the second respondent, I am persuaded to agree
with the learned standing counsel for the second
respondent that the petitioner has no cause of action to
maintain this writ petition.
This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
mn.