IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 19696 of 2005(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BENZITH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.C.PADMANABHAN, PANACHIKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. TAHASILDAR, KOYILANDY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KOYILANDY. 4. T.P.HAREESH KUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, AMBALAPARAMBIL, BALUSSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19696 of 2005 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR DT.18.7.01. EXT.P2: COPIES OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3: COPY OF INTERVIEW CAR 20.11.02. EXT.P4: COPY OF VENDOR LICENCE ISSUED BY R3 10.1.03. EXT.P5: COPY OF MALAYALA MANORAMA REPORT DT. 8.9.01. EXT.P6: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.6341/03 DT.14.11.03. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R2 DT 9.3.04. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R1. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE TREASURY SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT BOOK. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DT. 20.11.2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19696 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an aspirant for appointment as a Stamp Vendor under the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960. Pursuant to notification inviting applications, the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent along with others applied. The 3rd respondent selected and appointed the 4th respondent. The petitioner challenged such appointment in appeal and revision before 2nd and 1st respondents respectively which were also dismissed. The petitioner is challenging the order appointing the 4th respondent and the appellate and revisional orders in this writ petition. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner had superior qualifications than the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had superior experience as a Stamp Vendor in a leave vacancy whereas the 4th respondent had only experience under a Stamp Vendor. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in Balamani V. Tahsildar [2005(2) KLT 746]. W.P.(c)No.19696/05 2 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner is challenging the concurrent orders of the appointing authority, appellate authority and revisional authority whereby the petitioner’s contentions have been rejected. In the decision relied on by the petitioner himself, a learned Single Judge of this Court recognized the chances of a candidate gaining previous experience in a contrived leave vacancy. I am of opinion that simply because the petitioner was fortunate enough to have been appointed in a leave vacancy, he cannot have exclusive right to get appointment in exclusion of others, who were not fortunate enough to get such appointment in a leave vacancy. 3. The 3rd respondent, in his counter affidavit, has stated that the comparative merits of the candidates were assessed on the basis of financial soundness, experience, building facilities etc and found the 4th respondent the fit person to be so appointed. This is clearly an assessment of the comparative merits of the candidates. The 4th respondent is not unqualified for being considered for the licence. That being so, unless the petitioner alleges and proves malafides in selecting the 4th respondent, I do not think that such W.P.(c)No.19696/05 3 comparative assessment can be the subject matter of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.19696/05 4