High Court Kerala High Court

M.Arun Kumr vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.Arun Kumr vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5156 of 2010(T)


1. M.ARUN KUMR, S/O. LATE V.V.K. NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF

3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/05/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------
                   W.P.(C.) No.5156 of 2010 (T)
            ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Health Inspector Grade II in the

Health Services Department. He seeks inclusion of his name for

considering him for appointment to the post of Deputy Mass Media

Officer.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd

respondent. It is stated that for filling up the post of Deputy District

Education and Media Officer, applications were invited from eligible

departmental candidates vide circular dated 05/07/2002, and that

in response thereto, applications were received and a provisional list

for transfer/promotion was prepared and circulated to all District

Medical Officers. It is also stated that appeals filed against such list

were considered and a final list was prepared vide order dated

06/02/2003. Based on the list, DPC was convened and promotion

has been effected. It is stated that in response to circular dated

05/07/2002 inviting applications, the petitioner did not submit any

WP(C) No.5156/2010
-2-

application and that he made his request for the first time only on

06/06/2009. According to the 2nd respondent, since there is already

a select list for promotion, application of the petitioner for inclusion

in the list, could not be considered.

3. There is no reply contradicting the averments in the

statement.

In the light of the averments in the statement referred to

above, which stands uncontradicted, the claim of the petitioner for

inclusion in the select list and appointment to the post claimed is

unsustainable.

Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg