IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 5228 of 2007(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BALAKRISHNA MOOLYA.B., S/O.LATE DOOMA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT BODDANGODY HOUSE OF THALEKKALA VILLAGE AND MEEYAPADAVU POST, MANJESHWAR VIA., KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.SHAILAJA.K.P.,RESIDING AT THERUVATH, KASARGOD (WORKING AS PTCM), KASARGOD P.O. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI FOR R1-2 SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.5228/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KASARAGOD. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 14.8.2006. EXT.P2(a):- TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION REGISTERED AS LA 892/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5228/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were sponsored by the Kasargod District Employment Exchange, on the requesition of the first respondent, for selection and appointment to the post of part time contingent Menial. Eventually, the 3rd respondent was selected and appointed and that is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Two contentions are raised. One is that, going by the date of registration in the Employment Exchange, petitioner being senior to the 3rd respondent, she is liable to be preferred in the matter of appointment and the second is that, in the interview that was held, the marks given to the 3rd respondent was manipulated to give her an edge over to the petitioner. WP(c).No.5228/2007 2 3. In so far as the first claim is concerned, admittedly the appointment has been made on the basis of selection, by a process of interview. It is on the basis of marks that have been secured by the candidates, the rank list has been prepared and appointments made. If that be so, the seniority of registration in the employment exchange is irrelevant. 4. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marks assigned to the 3rd respondent has been manipulated so as to give her an edge over the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader made available file containing the mark lists and the mark list show that the petitioner's name figures at Sl.No.44 and he has been given 10 marks and the 3rd respondent whose name is at serial No.47 has been awarded 16 marks. The mark list does not in any manner show that there has not been any manipulation or even a correction. Therefore, on the material that is made available before me, I am not in a WP(c).No.5228/2007 3 position to endorse the second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.5228/2007 4