IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 707 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4568/2008 Dated 07/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT: --------------------- PRADEEP KUMAR G., PRASANTH HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. FOR P.S.C, SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Writ Appeal No. 707 of 2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The appellant/petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk in the Police Department. There was a quota reserved for the Officers of the Ministerial Wing in the Police Department in the selection to the post of Sub Inspector (General Executive). The petitioner, while working as an Upper Division Clerk, applied for the post of Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) also. He was selected and while undergoing training for that post, the selection process for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in the General Executive Branch commenced. The petitioner was also an applicant for the said post. The petitioner was not considered for selection by the P.S.C on the ground that he was no longer in the post of Upper Division Clerk neither at the time of submission of application nor at the time of selection. He was not in the Ministerial Wing but on the contrary, he was in the Armed Reserve. On that ground, his application was rejected. The petitioner approached this Court, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. But, finally, W.A.No.707/2008 -: 2 :- the Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P2 judgment directed the P.S.C to reconsider the matter. The judgment contained certain observations with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner. P.S.C by Ext.P4 communication, dated 10/03/2004, again rejected his claim. The said communication was issued in the light of Ext.P2 judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representations against the said communication on 19/04/2004, 31/05/2004, 08/07/2004 finally, he issued lawyer notice on 19/11/2004. Thereafter, no action was taken from his side. After the lapse of about two years, he again filed a representation on 27/07/2006. In the meantime, he moved the P.S.C under the Right to Information Act for getting the necessary details of his selection. After the culmination of the proceedings under the said Act, finally, he has chosen to file the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 only on 06/11/2007. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay in challenging Ext.P4. This appeal is filed challenging the said judgment. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition wherein, according to him, he has explained the delay in approaching this Court. The facts stated in the above paragraphs have already been noticed above. After the receipt of Ext.P4, it is true, he has sent some W.A.No.707/2008 -: 3 :- representations but he could have approached this Court within a reasonable time limit. But he has chosen to come here after the lapse of about four years. So he is guilty of delay and laches. Further, we notice that the selection concerned was of the year 1994. 3. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. But the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that on merits he has got a case. The same has been upheld by Ext.P2 judgment also and, therefore, he may be given a chance to canvass his case on merits. But, having regard to the facts of the case which we have already noticed, the above prayer cannot be allowed and it is not proper for this Court to venture to consider the correctness of the selection made in 1994. Rights, if any, of the petitioner have been lost by his conduct. We agree with reasons and conclusions of the learned single judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails, and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ms