IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1599 of 2009 ---------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5228/2007 Dated 25/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ BALAKRISHNA MOOLYA.B., S/O.LATE DOOMA MOOLYA,RESIDING AT BODDANGODY HOUSE,THALEKKALA VILLAGE, MEEYAPADAVU POST,MANJESHWAR (VIA), KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI & SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S)//RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, VIDYANAGAR,KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 3. SMT.SHAILAJA K.P., RESIDING AT THERUVATH,KASARAGOD, (WORKING AS PTCM),KASARAGOD POST. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. R3 BY ADV. SRI. M. SASINDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.1599 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He was a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Part-time contingent Menial. Though he has longer period of registration with the Employment Exchange and thereby senior in that respect, he was not selected. He found that the third respondent, who is junior in registration, has been selected and appointed. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, the writ petition was filed. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that, selection was held in accordance with law. Altogether, there were six vacancies and having regard to the marks awarded to the appellant, he did not find a place among the six selected candidates. The learned Single Judge called for the records, perused them and found nothing irregular in the procedure adopted for selection and based on that finding, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed. 2. According to the appellant, going by the various parameters prescribed for awarding of marks in the interview, he W.A. No.1599 of 2009: - 2 - should have been awarded more marks. For that reason, the selection is vitiated. 3. Since the learned Single Judge called for and perused the records, and found that there is nothing irregular, we feel that it is not necessary for us to probe further into the matter. This Court is not constituted as an appellate authority for re-considering the award of marks in the interview. There will always be a subjective element while awarding marks in the interview. This is inherent in every interview. Every candidate who is not selected, would feel that, he did not get the marks according to his merit. Such a grievance cannot have any redressal at the hands of the writ court. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)