IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16294 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.BALASUBRAHMANIAN, AGE 58, S/O.RAMAGUPTHAN, MUSALIYATH HOUSE, CHETHALLUR.P.O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC MR.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16294 of 2010 (J) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that in response to a notification issued by the 3rd respondent he applied for the post of Village Assistant in the Revenue and Civil Supplies Department. According to him, he was included in the rank list at Serial No.18 and that he ought to have been appointed with effect from 27/06/1986. However he was appointed only in 2001, and he retired from service in 2007. It is stated that he was overlooked in 1986 not for his fault and the appointment should be ordered to be given retrospectively with effect from 27/06/1986 and his terminal benefits should be quantified on that basis. It is stated that on this basis he has filed Ext.P5 and the representation also remains unattended. 2. The learned Government Pleader brought to my notice that the very appointment of the petitioner was invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules. 3. This claim now made is highly belated and if allowed, WP(C) No.16294/2010 -2- that will unsettle the settled seniority position, which shall not be done. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the claim raised and for that reason, I do not think it appropriate to direct consideration of Ext.P5 representation also. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg