IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 529 of 2009(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEEPAK SHYAM DIVAKARAN S/O. DIVAKARAN, AGED 22 YEARS (NO OCCUPATION) P.K.HOUSE, POST AZHIKODE, KANNUR-9 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR. 2. THE HEAD MISTRESSES AZHIKODE HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR 670 009 3. THE MANAGER AZHIKODE HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR 670 009 4. ABHILASH.P, S/O. P.JANARDHANAN AZHIKODE THERU, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR 670 009 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.529 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an unemployed person. The petitioner and certain other candidates applied when applications were invited for the post of a Full Time Contingent Menial in Azhikode High School of which the third respondent is the Manager. One Venu was selected and he was appointed. It is stated that subsequently on finding that Venu was over aged, he was discontinued from service on 26.12.2008 as per Ext.P2. Since the post fell vacant consequent on the discontinuance of Venu, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application to the third respondent to provide him with the job. There was no response. Now, Ext.P5 notification has been issued by the third respondent inviting applications for the appointment of Night Watchman. The petitioner has applied pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are to quash Ext.P5 notification and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Night Watchman on merits. The WPC No. 529/2009 2 petitioner contends that when Venu was found ineligible for the post, the petitioner should have been appointed. This contention is unsustainable. It is his further case that in such circumstances, the petitioner should be appointed as the Night Watchman. 3. Only applications have been invited. The petitioner has submitted application pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are not maintainable. The apprehension of the petitioner that the Manager may appoint the 4th respondent cannot be countenanced at this stage. I do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl