IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1183 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6850/2008 dated 27/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- -------------------------- SALIM BABU.PK., AGED 39 YEARS, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (OPERATIONS) 0/0. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA, (RESIDING AT KANJIRATHIL, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- ---------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, NEW DELHI-1. 3. SRI.K.S.SRINIVASAN, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.HARIDASAN.M, GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, TELECOM DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SRI.V.J.D.NAIR, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (OPERATIONS) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, TELECOM DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. WA.No. 1183 of 2008 6. SRI.K.G.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, (OPERATIONS) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, TELECOM DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.1183 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. Some adverse remarks were entered against the petitioner in his confidential records that were communicated to him. He filed a representation. The representation was not considered. That was again challenged in appeal and finally the representation given to the Chief General Manager was also rejected. Against that order he approached this Court and this Court directed to consider his request. Again that was considered and the same was rejected by the Chief General Manager. The learned single Judge found that all aspects were considered by the superior officers and all the pleadings made by him were considered after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. 2. In view of the above, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution as this Court is not sitting in -: 2 :- appeal over these matters. There is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality. We see no ground to differ from the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 10/6