IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 738 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25090/2004 Dated 30/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------- SMT.SREEKUMARI, RESIDING AT VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CULTURAL AFFAIRS (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.O.PADMAKUMARI, BINDER, KERALA STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL (VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU), PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHAN FOR R2 AND R3. SRI.V.R.GOPU FOR R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------- W.A.No. 738 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant claims she was an applicant for appointment to Class IV post under the Kerala State Institute of Languages, when the said Institute invited applications for the same in 1996. Admittedly, the appellant was not selected for appointment. The appellant has not taken any effective steps to challenge her non-selection or the selection and appointment of other candidates. It is true, the petitioner along with two others filed O.P.No.574/1996, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment recording the submission of the Institute that they have decided to terminate the services of all provisional hands and to effect appointment on contract basis. The said resolution was taken on 5.10.2001. 2. But, the 4th respondent and others were already appointed in 1996. After the writ petitions, concerning those W.A.No.738/2009 2 appointments were disposed of, she was regularised along with others by Annexure-III order dated 11.7.2003. Later, she was further promoted by Ext.P8 order dated 14.7.2004. This Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 3. The appellant was only an applicant, who applied for the post of Class-IV employee in 1996. The 4th respondent was appointed as binder and later regularised in that post and still later promoted also. The appellant, who could not get appointment, has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P8. The writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps