IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 9803 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJITH THANKAYYA,ADVOCATE,PADMALAYAM, KANJIRAMKULAM.PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695524. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.ALPHONS D XAVIER SRI.E.S.ASHRAF SRI.G.GIREESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRAR,(SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. 3. MISS.NAZEERA.S,8/61,NELSA, VIDYA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 4. K.SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE, CHEMBAKA HOUSE, NANMINDA POST, KOZHIKODE (R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.NO.3480/10 DTD.3.6.10) 5. MUHAMMED RACES, ROOBY NIVAS, MUDAPURAM PO CHIRAYINKIL, TRIVANDRUM. (R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.6839/2010 ON 3.6.10) ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R2 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R3 ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R4 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R4 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9813 OF 2009 WPC NO. 2985 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos. 9803 & 9813 of 2009 and W.P.(C).No. 2985 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T A Division Bench of this Court has in Jayachandran v. High Court of Kerala [2010 (4) KHC 1(DB)] finally settled the position regarding the recruitment of District Judges in the Subordinate Judiciary of the State recently, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions. The Special Leave Petition filed against that judgment has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In view of the said decision, the selection now stands narrowed down to only seven persons. The petitioners in these writ petitions are not among them. That being so, there is no point in considering these writ petitions on merits. Accordingly, they are closed leaving open the other contentions in these writ petitions, which have not been considered by the Division Bench in Jayachandran's case (supra) to be raised and agitated appropriately, if occasion arises in future. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge