IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10043 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BABU RAJAN.K., S/O.KUMARAN, VADAKKADATHU VEEDU,PUNNAKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.P.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOR INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD. REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WALAYAR, PALGHAT. 3. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV. MR. K. ANAND R3 BY ADV. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 10043 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri. K. Anand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri. Murali Purushothaman, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. When the writ petition was called upon for hearing today, there was no representation for the petitioner. 2. Sri K.Anand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking appointment as Mazdoor, that the second respondent resisted the said writ petition contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was over aged as on 01.01.2004, that the said disability continues to exist and that the second respondent has not taken steps to appoint Mazdoors from the open W.P.(C) 10043/09 -2- market. The learned standing counsel also submits that earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Ext. P8 judgment with the direction that petition’s candidature would also be considered as and when vacancies arise, if he applies pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent, if he is otherwise eligible. The learned standing counsel further submits that the second respondent has not so far taken steps to issue a notification inviting applications for appointment of Mazdoors from the open market and that the petitioner has no cause of action. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar by the learned standing counsel for the second respondent, I am persuaded to agree with the learned standing counsel for the second respondent that the petitioner has no cause of action to maintain this writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.