High Court Kerala High Court

Kala.V vs District Medical Officer on 17 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Kala.V vs District Medical Officer on 17 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3376 of 2009(B)


1. KALA.V, GANGA BHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SHAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :17/02/2009

 O R D E R
               T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.3376 of 2009
                      --------------------------
             Dated this the 17th February,2009

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was having registration with Employment

Exchange Kollam early as from 6.7.1976. Exhibit-P2

shows that she has renewed her registration from time to

time.

2. For the post of Part-time Sweeper, the 1st

respondent gave requisition to the Employment Exchange

Kollam for advising candidates and the name of the

petitioner was sponsored. According to the petitioner,

after the interview, the 1st respondent finalized the list as

per Exhibit-P4. But her name has been omitted. Exhibit-

P4 is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground

that many of the persons selected are junior to the

petitioner both age wise as well as the date of

employment registration.

3. Learned government Pleader, on instructions,

submitted that selection is made on the basis of the

guidelines and allotment of marks alone. It is not an

W.P ( C) No.3376 of 2009
2

arbitrary selection that is made. Therefore, the contention

that both seniority and the date of employment registration

will be considered in the selection cannot be accepted.

4. In that view of the matter, there is nothing

wrong in Exhibit-P4 list finalized by the 1st respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is already aged 49 and she may not get much

chance to get any appointment before attaining the age of

50. The claim of the petitioner for sponsoring in other

vacancies will be considered in accordance with her

seniority and date of registration by the Employment

Officer concerned. In the event of the appointing authority

submitting any requisition to the employment exchange

concerned, the employment officer will consider the claim

of the petitioner in accordance with the stipulations that is

being followed from time to time.

With the above observations, the writ petition is

disposed of.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)

ma

W.P ( C) No.3376 of 2009
3

W.P ( C) No.3376 of 2009
4

W.P ( C) No.3376 of 2009
5