IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 11827 of 2006(G)
1. SHEEBA E.V., ETTYCHUVATTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
4. SENTHIL KUMAR.T.K.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.ROCKEY
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :06/02/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).11827/2006
--------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner and the fourth respondent herein were
included in the select list approved by the selection
committed constituted by the government for appointment
under the scheme for outstanding sports persons in public
service. Fourth respondent was included as rank No.4 in
the main list and petitioner was included as rank No.1 in
the reserve list. Apparently, by Ext.P2, fourth respondent
was appointed as L.D.Clerk in the Co-operative
Department. It seems that the fourth respondent was at
that time working as Sub Inspector of Police in CRPF and
stationed at New Delhi. He had to be relieved from his
duties at New Delhi. On the basis of Ext.P2, Registrar of
Co-operative Societies had issued an appointment order
on 16.7.2005 and on receipt of the same, fourth
respondent submitted a resignation letter on 20.7.2005
before the CRPF authorities. There is a dispute as to the
reasons which stood in the way of the third respondent,
acting upon the resignation letter immediately. Be that as
W.P.(C).11827/2006
2
it may, fourth respondent had approached this Court in
Writ Petition No.27492/2005 seeking a direction to the
CRPF authorities to consider his resignation letter,
accept the same and relieve him from service. In the
meanwhile, fourth respondent had approached the
Government for extension of time to join duty pursuant
to Ext.P2 and ultimately such time was granted till
31.3.2006 as evidenced by Ext.R4(a). Fourth respondent
joined duty on 20.3.2006. Petitioner has approached
this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to
cancel the appointment of the fourth respondent on the
premise that he was a member of another Government
service at the time when he was actually appointed in as
much as he had not been relieved from the service of the
third respondent on 20.3.2006.
2. Counter affidavit had been filed by the first, third
and fourth respondents separately.
3. According to the third respondent, though the
fourth respondent had submitted a resignation letter on
W.P.(C).11827/2006
3
20.7.2004, it came to be accepted only much later. But I
note that in the first counter affidavit filed by the third
respondent, it is stated that the fourth respondent had
submitted a resignation letter on 16.7.2004. No doubt
third respondent has given certain reasons as to the
delay in accepting the resignation letter. But in my view,
it is noteworthy that he did actually submit the
resignation letter on 20.7.2004 within the shortest time
possible after receipt of the order of posting issued by
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 16.7.2004. As
a matter of fact, when such resignation stood accepted,
it should be deemed to relate back to the date on which
the letter for resignation was actually submitted. The
intention is expressly evident from the letter accepting
such resignation. There is no material before me to
infer any exception.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Augustine
submits that appointment of the fourth respondent is
contrary to the Kerala Government Services
(application for posts mentioned in Government services)
W.P.(C).11827/2006
4
Rule 1980. He submits that even the application filed by
the fourth respondent should have had consent of the
third respondent. Fourth respondent was admittedly
working in CRPF when he made an application for
appointment in the State Government service. I note
that there is no specific contention taken up by the
fourth respondent that he had the consent of his Head of
Office before he made an application for appointment in
the Government service. I am afraid that this
contention has been urged only at the time of hearing of
the writ petition. Respondents did not get an
opportunity to controvert the same in the counter
affidavit. In the ultimate analysis, I am constrained to
take note of the fact that the fourth respondent who was
ranked 4 in the main list actually resigned from the
post of Sub Inspector in CRPF consequential upon the
appointment in the State Government service. An
interference with his appointment at the instance of
petitioner, who is only included in the reserve list, is
neither justified nor warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
W.P.(C).11827/2006
5
5. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise
my jurisdiction, in this regard even if it is assumed that
there was a lapse on the part of the fourth respondent
in not getting himself relieved from the duties of the
third respondent before joining duty in the State
Government service.
6. For all these reasons, I do not find any grounds to
interfere in the writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs