IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2379 of 2008()
1. V.SURESH KUMAR, SEETHA SADANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :20/03/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 2379 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant/petitioner is included in the rank list,
published by the Public Service Commission, for the post of
Excise Guards in Kollam District. From the pleadings it was not
clear what was the rank of the petitioner in the rank list. The
learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice an
additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 11.10.2007, in
which he has submitted that his rank number is 73, in the main
list. He is an open competition candidate. According to him,
persons from open merit quota have already been appointed upto
rank number 53. It means, to reach his turn of 73, 40 more
vacancies should be filled up. Even as per the interim order, 34
vacancies were only reported and that too in a connected Writ
W.A.No. 2379 of 2008
2
Petition. So, even if all the vacancies so reported are filled up, the
chances of getting appointment to the appellant are remote.
2. Secondly, the foundation of his claim is based on the excess
inter-district transfer to the said post. Those transfers were made from
1995 to 2002. As evident from the statement filed by the Assistant
Excise Commissioner, Kollam, which is available at page 86 of the
Paper Book, we notice that after the publication of the rank list, only
one person was appointed under the inter-district transfer quota.
3. The writ petition was preferred on 12.1.2005. The rank list
expired on 14.1.2005. So, the writ petition was filed on the eve of
expiry of the rank list. That means, the appellant acquiesced to inter-
district transfer, allegedly made in excess of the quota fixed for such
transfers. The last of such appointments was made about three years
prior to the institution of the writ petition. It means, there is inordinate
delay in filing this writ petition. The appellant is guilty of delay and
laches. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief based
on the excess appointment of inter-district transferees.
W.A.No. 2379 of 2008
3
4. In view of the above facts, this Writ Appeal lacks merit and
accordingly it is dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm