High Court Kerala High Court

C.Nirmala vs Divisional Officer on 4 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
C.Nirmala vs Divisional Officer on 4 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2129 of 2008()


1. C.NIRMALA, SHEEJA BHAVAN, KARICODU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. LILLY KUTTY, (PART TIME SWEEPER)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :04/11/2008

 O R D E R
               J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
                       --------------------------------------
                         W.A.No.2129 OF 2008
                        -------------------------------------
                       Dated 4th November, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Koshy,J.

The appellant is an aspirant for the post of Part-time Sweeper

in Kadakkal Fire and Rescue Services. The appellant was also called for

interview along with the others, but, she was not selected and the third

respondent was selected. Ext.P4 letter shows that first respondent

himself conducted the interview on 22.09.2007 and out of the eight

persons appeared for interview, he selected the third respondent whom

he found suitable. Contention of the appellant is that she was the senior

most applicant. She is nearing the age of 50. It is further stated that

she passed SSLC, whereas the third respondent did not pass SSLC.

However, the applications produced would show that there are

applicants with Pre-degree and with KGTE Type writing etc. The post is

only for a part-time sweeper. SSLC is not a required qualification for

that post. Good physique is the only required qualification. All the

applicants are from below poverty line. One of the persons was found

suitable and selected. No specific averments of malafides on the part of

the respondents are mentioned. The allegations of political interference

etc. cannot be looked into without producing any evidence for

W.A.2129/2008 2

substantiating the same. Considering the merits of the case, we are

of the opinion that this is not a case where interference should be

made by this court.

The appeal is dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE

tks