IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29033 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KRISHNADAS B., MADHAVAPURATHU, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691583. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583. 2. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER(P&A), KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583. ADV. M/S.B.S.KRISHNAN ASSOCIATES, SC. KMML SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.29033 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a person who surrendered property for establishing the 1st respondent-company. According to the petitioner, in accordance with the agreement with the company, the petitioner is entitled to preference in the matter of appointments to vacancies available in the company. He filed this writ petition alleging that in the matter of appointment to the post of Junior Technician (Fitter), although the petitioner was invited for an interview, the petitioner has not been favoured with the preference, which is due to him as per the agreement with the company.. In the counter affidavit filed by the company, it is stated that the claims of all evictees for preference have been duly considered and a select list has been drawn up, in which, the petitioner is 11th in rank. Five candidates higher in rank to the petitioner have been appointed pursuant to the selection and those 5 persons are belonging to the preferential category, to which, the petitioner seeks appointment. In view of the same, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2