IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5700 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.NIZAR, S/O.KHALIDKUTTY, RAJEENA MANZIL, P.V.NORTH, THODIYOOR, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. SMT.REJIMOL.R., PUTHENVEETTIL, KOTTAKKUPURAM, CLAPPANA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 5700 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 18, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1, applications are invited for appointment as a substitute AWD. Along with other candidates, petitioner also had applied. Eventually by Ext.P2 order, the 3rd respondent appointed the 5th respondent. In an appeal filed against Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 directing reconsideration by the 3rd respondent. The matter was accordingly reconsidered and by Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent again confirmed the appointment of the 5th respondent. Against Ext.P4 an appeal was filed and and that was rejected by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 revision filed before the 1st respondent also met with the dismissal by Ext.P8. It is challenging the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner submits that though the appointment has been affirmed concurrently, different reasons have been given by different authorities and therefore the matter needs to be reconsidered. 3. Having considered the submission of the counsel for the WP(C) 5700/08 Page numbers petitioner and also going through the orders impugned in this writ petition, I do not think that there exists any perversity in the factual findings arrived at by the authorities calling for an examination in a proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Writ appeal fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-