IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31564 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUJILAL.S. S/O. SOMAN, LAL BHAVAN, CHERUSSERY BHAGOM VILLAGE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.ANAND, SC FOR KMML THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.31564 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 is a notification issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent on 10/10/2009 inviting applications for the posts mentioned therein. It also provides that ex-apprentices of the Company will be given preference. 2. The petitioner is an ex-apprentice of the Company, and he also claims to be a contract employee residing within the Panchayat, within whose jurisdiction the Company is situated. According to the petitioner, in response to Ext.P5 notification, he submitted Ext.P7 application claiming preference as provided in Clauses 3 & 4 of Ext.P5 notification. It is stated that he has been informed that the petitioner will not be given preference, and that overlooking his right of claim, appointments are going to be made. 3. A reading of Clauses 3 & 4 of Ext.P5 notification itself show that preference has been provided by the Company. If such a preference has been provided in a vacancy notification, the WP(C) No.31564/2009 -2- Company is obliged to give such preference to the candidates, who are eligible for the same. As at present, the Company has finalised any selection or made any appointment in pursuance to Ext.P5, and the petitioner can have a grievance only if his preferential claim has been over looked and appointments have been made by the Company. Therefore, as at present, the writ petition is premature. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of as premature and clarifying that it will be open to the petitioner to move this Court, if and when his claim, if any, has been overlooked. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg