IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19685 of 2010(I)
1. PRASOBHKUMAR P., AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC
3. THE COMMANDANT, OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).19685/2010
--------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was advised for appointment to the post of Police
Constable. He was appointed and was required to report for
duty on 28.11.2009. According to the petitioner, due to back
pain, he could not report for duty on that day. He sent Ext.P2
letter dated 28.11.2009 to the 3rd respondent along with the
medical certificate. It is stated that despite the request that was
made, by Ext.P4 dated 10.3.2010, 2nd respondent intimated that
the advice has been cancelled. Thereupon, petitioner submitted
Ext.P5 to the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P6, 3rd respondent
intimated the petitioner that he will abide by the orders of the
superiors. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed.
2. Admittedly petitioner had to report for duty on
28.11.2009. According to him, due to illness he could not report
and thereupon he made Ext.P2 representation dated 28.11.2009
to the 3rd respondent. Even if it is accepted that the said
W.P.(C).19685/2010
2
representation was made, petitioner has not done anything until
the advice was cancelled on 10th March 2010. If the petitioner
had genuine reason for not reporting for duty after making
Ext.P2 representation, he ought to have enquired the matter with
the 3rd respondent and got the time for joining duty extended
and reported on recovering from his sickness. This the
petitioner did not do. Therefore, it is the neglect on the part of
the petitioner which resulted in Ext.P4 and I am not persuaded
to interfere with the same.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs