IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2883 of 2011(I)
1. SATHEESH KUMAR.V., KARTHIKA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE SCIENCE &
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/02/2011
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.2883 of 2011
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
Petitioner responded to a notification dated 2.6.2003, inviting
applications for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the
second respondent’s institution. He was interviewed on 1.12.2003.
According to the petitioner, petitioner was first in the rank list
published after the interview. But the list was cancelled within two
days without reason and the selection was re-notified. Thereafter, in
the re-selection one Abdul Rasheed was appointed. But his
appointment was later cancelled on finding that he was unqualified.
The petitioner filed a complaint and elaborate enquiry was instituted,
even upto the level of the Chief Minister. Ultimately, second
respondent re-notified the selection by Exhibit P8 dated 9.12.2009. By
that time the petitioner became over aged for applying for the post. It
is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition
seeking the following reliefs:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order calling for records leading
up to Ext.P8 and quash the same.
WP(C).2883/11 2
B. Writ ofmandamus or any other appropriate writ,
directin or order directing the respondents to
appoint the petitioner as per the earlier rank list
published for the interview dated 1.12.2003.
C. Grant such other relief or reliefs that may be
prayed for or that are found to be just and proper
in the nature and circumstances of the case.”
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. In the Writ Petition the petitioner says that the petitioner’s
name was first in the rank list published after the interview. But he has
not stated in the Writ Petition as to from where he has received that
information, insofar as admittedly, the petitioner has not seen the rank
list. He himself has produced a lot of documents along with I.A.No.2210
of 2011, which would go to show that the committee, which
interviewed the candidates on 1.12.2003, found that none of the
candidates were fit to hold the post, insofar as their capacity to convey
was found to be not at all satisfactory. Therefore, they did not even
publish any rank list and decided to re-notify the post. Of course, in the
re-notification one Abdul Rasheed was appointed, who was later found
not to possess one specific qualification prescribed and therefore, his
appointment was cancelled. It is thereafter the re-notification was
issued now.
WP(C).2883/11 3
4. I do not think that in the above circumstances the petitioner
can seek the reliefs prayed for. As per the records produced, it is
evident that pursuant to the interview on 1.12.2003, no rank list was
prepared because the Committee was of opinion that none of the
candidates interviewed were fit to hold the post. The petitioner cannot,
now in 2011, claim that that decision of the Committee should be
cancelled and he should be appointed to the post. In the facts revealed
it is in the fitness of things that a fresh selection should be conducted.
It is only unfortunate that by then the petitioner became over aged.
That cannot be helped in the circumstances. Therefore, I do not find
any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
vgs