IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2007 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 7310 of 2007(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMMED NAJEEB, S/O A.SHAFFI HUSSAIN, T.C.43-610, PARUTHIKKUZHI, MANAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE DAVIS RESPONDENTS: ------------- KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.7310 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13 th day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner was engaged on temporary basis as Senior Assistant. His service was terminated subsequently. According to the petitioner, the reason stated for the termination of service, namely, that the Public Service Commission hand has to join duty in that post is not true. According to him, temporary hands are allowed to work under the respondents and therefore, the petitioner can be reinstated in service and allowed to continue just like other temporary employees. 2. The petitioner does not have a case that the post of Senior Assistant is not liable to be filled up by the Public Service Commission hands. The petitioner has no right to the post of Senior Assistant. His appointment was only temporary. There is no legal duty on the part of the respondents to retain the petitioner in service. W.P.(C)No.7310/2007 :2: 3. According to the petitioner, he had filed a representation before the Minister concerned. But he has not filed any application before the respondent whose duty it is even if it is admitted for argument sake that the petitioner has got a legal right for reappointment, to consider the request of the petitioner. 4. He has filed this writ petition without challenging the order of termination. Hence the termination has become final. Hence, the direction sought for to the respondent to reinstate him in service is a futile exercise. Reliefs have been sought for, without making out a case that he has got the right to continue in service. This writ petition, is therefore, liable to be dismissed. I do so. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE css / W.P.(C)No.7310/2007 :3: s W.P.(C)No.7310/2007 :4: