High Court Kerala High Court

Biju M.S. vs State on 10 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Biju M.S. vs State on 10 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8991 of 2007(U)


1. BIJU M.S., S/O.MADHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING,
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

                        Vs


1. STATE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.WILSON URMESE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :10/11/2008

 O R D E R
                      P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

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

                    W.P.(C) No.8991 of 2007

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

               Dated this the 10th November, 2008.

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner who possess Diploma in Printing

Technology from the Institute of Printing Technology, Shornur,

has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 notification issued

by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the

post of Printer Grade-II in the Department of Printing. The

petitioner contends, relying on the averments in Ext.P5 counter

affidavit sworn to by the Chief Secretary of the State in a

Contempt of Court of Case, that appointments to the post of

Printer Grade-II will only result in unnecessary financial burden

on the State Government and that the Government is not using

the obsolete technology of letter press printing. The petitioner

contends that such being the situation, the notification is liable to

be struck down.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Kerala Public Service Commission submits that pursuant to Ext.P7

W.P.(C) No.8991 of 2007

2

notification, a ranked list was published and that the petitioner

was included in Ext.P2 ranked list published on 17.10.2005,

which ceased to be in force on 16.10.2008. The petitioner’s

grievance is that when Ext.P2 ranked list is in force, there was no

reason to issue a fresh notification inviting applications for the

same post. The petitioner has however not chosen to implead

any of the persons who applied pursuant to Ext.P7 notification as

a party to this writ petition. If Ext.P7 is quashed, it will affect a

large number of persons, who are not on the party array. Such

being the situation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE

nj.