IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19685 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRASOBHKUMAR P., AGED 31 YEARS, THAITHARA, PONNADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688568. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMANDANT, OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT, KAPP BTIN NO.I, RAMAVARMAPURAM, P.B.NO.2, THRISSUR – 31. GP SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19685/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was advised for appointment to the post of Police Constable. He was appointed and was required to report for duty on 28.11.2009. According to the petitioner, due to back pain, he could not report for duty on that day. He sent Ext.P2 letter dated 28.11.2009 to the 3rd respondent along with the medical certificate. It is stated that despite the request that was made, by Ext.P4 dated 10.3.2010, 2nd respondent intimated that the advice has been cancelled. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 to the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P6, 3rd respondent intimated the petitioner that he will abide by the orders of the superiors. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 2. Admittedly petitioner had to report for duty on 28.11.2009. According to him, due to illness he could not report and thereupon he made Ext.P2 representation dated 28.11.2009 to the 3rd respondent. Even if it is accepted that the said W.P.(C).19685/2010 2 representation was made, petitioner has not done anything until the advice was cancelled on 10th March 2010. If the petitioner had genuine reason for not reporting for duty after making Ext.P2 representation, he ought to have enquired the matter with the 3rd respondent and got the time for joining duty extended and reported on recovering from his sickness. This the petitioner did not do. Therefore, it is the neglect on the part of the petitioner which resulted in Ext.P4 and I am not persuaded to interfere with the same. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs