IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2883 of 2011(I) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- SATHEESH KUMAR.V., KARTHIKA, TC-6/2313-1, THITTAMANGALAM, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.V.V.MITHUN SRIB.RAJESH(TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, MUSEUM AND PRIYADARSHINI PLANETARIUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.2883 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner responded to a notification dated 2.6.2003, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the second respondent's institution. He was interviewed on 1.12.2003. According to the petitioner, petitioner was first in the rank list published after the interview. But the list was cancelled within two days without reason and the selection was re-notified. Thereafter, in the re-selection one Abdul Rasheed was appointed. But his appointment was later cancelled on finding that he was unqualified. The petitioner filed a complaint and elaborate enquiry was instituted, even upto the level of the Chief Minister. Ultimately, second respondent re-notified the selection by Exhibit P8 dated 9.12.2009. By that time the petitioner became over aged for applying for the post. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records leading up to Ext.P8 and quash the same. WP(C).2883/11 2 B. Writ ofmandamus or any other appropriate writ, directin or order directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as per the earlier rank list published for the interview dated 1.12.2003. C. Grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the Writ Petition the petitioner says that the petitioner's name was first in the rank list published after the interview. But he has not stated in the Writ Petition as to from where he has received that information, insofar as admittedly, the petitioner has not seen the rank list. He himself has produced a lot of documents along with I.A.No.2210 of 2011, which would go to show that the committee, which interviewed the candidates on 1.12.2003, found that none of the candidates were fit to hold the post, insofar as their capacity to convey was found to be not at all satisfactory. Therefore, they did not even publish any rank list and decided to re-notify the post. Of course, in the re-notification one Abdul Rasheed was appointed, who was later found not to possess one specific qualification prescribed and therefore, his appointment was cancelled. It is thereafter the re-notification was issued now. WP(C).2883/11 3 4. I do not think that in the above circumstances the petitioner can seek the reliefs prayed for. As per the records produced, it is evident that pursuant to the interview on 1.12.2003, no rank list was prepared because the Committee was of opinion that none of the candidates interviewed were fit to hold the post. The petitioner cannot, now in 2011, claim that that decision of the Committee should be cancelled and he should be appointed to the post. In the facts revealed it is in the fitness of things that a fresh selection should be conducted. It is only unfortunate that by then the petitioner became over aged. That cannot be helped in the circumstances. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vgs