IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 11827 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHEEBA E.V., ETTYCHUVATTIL HOUSE, KUPPADY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, TRAINING BRANCH, CRPF, FB10, L7, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI. 4. SENTHIL KUMAR.T.K., THANU NIVAS, TC 68/2453, M.H.ROAD, VENKARA, THIRUVALLOM, TRIVANDRUM - 685027. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.KRB.KAIMAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.(Rt).NO.859/2005/GAD DATED 1.2..05 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.(MS).216/05/GAD, DATED 27.6.05 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.1.06 IN W.P.(C).6/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11827/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner and the fourth respondent herein were included in the select list approved by the selection committed constituted by the government for appointment under the scheme for outstanding sports persons in public service. Fourth respondent was included as rank No.4 in the main list and petitioner was included as rank No.1 in the reserve list. Apparently, by Ext.P2, fourth respondent was appointed as L.D.Clerk in the Co-operative Department. It seems that the fourth respondent was at that time working as Sub Inspector of Police in CRPF and stationed at New Delhi. He had to be relieved from his duties at New Delhi. On the basis of Ext.P2, Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued an appointment order on 16.7.2005 and on receipt of the same, fourth respondent submitted a resignation letter on 20.7.2005 before the CRPF authorities. There is a dispute as to the reasons which stood in the way of the third respondent, acting upon the resignation letter immediately. Be that as W.P.(C).11827/2006 2 it may, fourth respondent had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.27492/2005 seeking a direction to the CRPF authorities to consider his resignation letter, accept the same and relieve him from service. In the meanwhile, fourth respondent had approached the Government for extension of time to join duty pursuant to Ext.P2 and ultimately such time was granted till 31.3.2006 as evidenced by Ext.R4(a). Fourth respondent joined duty on 20.3.2006. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to cancel the appointment of the fourth respondent on the premise that he was a member of another Government service at the time when he was actually appointed in as much as he had not been relieved from the service of the third respondent on 20.3.2006. 2. Counter affidavit had been filed by the first, third and fourth respondents separately. 3. According to the third respondent, though the fourth respondent had submitted a resignation letter on W.P.(C).11827/2006 3 20.7.2004, it came to be accepted only much later. But I note that in the first counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the fourth respondent had submitted a resignation letter on 16.7.2004. No doubt third respondent has given certain reasons as to the delay in accepting the resignation letter. But in my view, it is noteworthy that he did actually submit the resignation letter on 20.7.2004 within the shortest time possible after receipt of the order of posting issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 16.7.2004. As a matter of fact, when such resignation stood accepted, it should be deemed to relate back to the date on which the letter for resignation was actually submitted. The intention is expressly evident from the letter accepting such resignation. There is no material before me to infer any exception. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Augustine submits that appointment of the fourth respondent is contrary to the Kerala Government Services (application for posts mentioned in Government services) W.P.(C).11827/2006 4 Rule 1980. He submits that even the application filed by the fourth respondent should have had consent of the third respondent. Fourth respondent was admittedly working in CRPF when he made an application for appointment in the State Government service. I note that there is no specific contention taken up by the fourth respondent that he had the consent of his Head of Office before he made an application for appointment in the Government service. I am afraid that this contention has been urged only at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Respondents did not get an opportunity to controvert the same in the counter affidavit. In the ultimate analysis, I am constrained to take note of the fact that the fourth respondent who was ranked 4 in the main list actually resigned from the post of Sub Inspector in CRPF consequential upon the appointment in the State Government service. An interference with his appointment at the instance of petitioner, who is only included in the reserve list, is neither justified nor warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).11827/2006 5 5. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction, in this regard even if it is assumed that there was a lapse on the part of the fourth respondent in not getting himself relieved from the duties of the third respondent before joining duty in the State Government service. 6. For all these reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs