IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 185 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9159/2010 Dated 02/08/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. K.P.RATNA SINGH, AGED 41, S/O.K.P.KORUKKUTTY, B-15,BSNL QUARTERS, CHEVAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. GIREESAN PARAPPOYIL, CHETTUVAIL (H), P.T.ROAD, VADAKARA, PIN 673 101. 3. MANOHARAN.M., S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, EDAVALAKKANDY, MAYANAD P.O., KOZHIKODE. 4. K.M.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHEKKININ, KANIYANKANDI CHALIL, PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE. 5. M.VASUDEVAN, S/O.M.DAMODARAN, MELEPARAZHI (H), FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. T.C.PYARI LAL, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE. 2 5. P.M.RAHEESH KUMAR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDITY, CORPORATION AUDIT, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION. 6. SUMANGALA.T., KARTHIKA, HOUSE NO.22A, KERALA NAGAR, NELLAYAM P.,O., TRIVANDRUM-695013. 7. N.SATHEESAN, NANGARAYIL HOUSE, MOOKKUTHALA P.O., MALAPPURAM DT. 8. P.K.MINU, ANUPAMA NIVAS, 7/705 B, NEITHELIL NAGAR, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SMT. T.B. RAMANI ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R5 TO8 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R5 TO 8 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 185 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellants, and we have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. Appellants are challenging Special Rules providing for two posts of Audit Officers from Typists and Confidential Assistants. Rule is challenged only on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, according to appellants, typists and confidential assistants are not qualified to be appointed as Audit Officers. However, the learned single Judge found that out of 17 vacancies only two vacancies are reserved for promotion by transfer from typists and confidential assistants. Appellants admit that selection is through screening from among qualified typists and confidential assistants. It is also accepted position that there is no promotional avenues for typists and confidential assistants. So much so, the learned single Judge found that there is nothing arbitrary in the rules providing promotional avenues 2 for typists and confidential assistants, who are given two vacancies out of 17 vacancies. We agree with the finding of the learned single Judge and consequently Writ Appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk 3