IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 31055 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER ----------------- BALAMURALIKRISHNAN.P., S/O.PRABHAKARA PANICKER KOMALABHAVANAM, MANNANCHERRY PO, ALAPPUZHA-688 538. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODHANAN SRI.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEVASWOM, STATE SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.G.BIJU , SC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 31055 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SELECT LIST. EXT.P2. COPY of the ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR APPEARING FOR THE EXAMINATION. EXT.P3. COPY OF LETTER NO.R.O.C. 11/06/MIS. A LONG WITH RELEVANT PORTION OF SELECT LIST TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 17.10.2008 . RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A TO JUDGE VK K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 31055 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that he is entitled to be appointed as a watcher under the first respondent. Pursuant to a notification in the year 2005, a written test was conducted and a short list of the selected candidates was also published by the respondents, as evidenced by Ext.P1. At that time there were about 50 sanctioned vacancies but, no action was taken to fill up the said vacancies from Ext.P1 list. Subsequently, on 4-12-2007, as per Ext.R1(d) the list has been cancelled by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the cancellation of the list has been found to be unjustified by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 3-9-2010 in W.A.1509/2010. 2. The appointments made from the select list so published was challenged in W.P(C)12899/2008. As per the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appointments made from the select list so cancelled were also set aside. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of W.A.1509/2010. WPC 31055/2008 2 3. In the said judgment, the Division Bench found that the cancellation of the appointments made from the select list by the learned Single Judge was not justified. It was also found that the physical test that was conducted for watchmen was not a physical efficiency test but only one intended to ensure that the candidate was physically fit. For the above reasons the Division Bench found that there were absolutely no grounds to interfere with appointments made by the Board. Therefore, the petitioner in the said writ petition was found entitled to get an appointment as claimed by him. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed. 4. The petitioner herein claims that he is also entitled to get appointment in terms of the decision in W.A.1509/2010. 5. In view of the fact that such appointment as claimed by the petitioner has to be made by the first respondent Board, it is only appropriate that the first respondent considers the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.1509/2010. 6. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the petitioner to make a request to the first respondent Board to appoint him to the post of watchman as claimed by him producing a copy of the writ appeal judgment seeking such appointment. Such WPC 31055/2008 3 request as indicated above shall be submitted within ten days of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be a further direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the dictum of the writ appeal judgment and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of receipt of such representation. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 31055/2008 4