IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6202 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIJI A., KOCHUKOTTACKAKATHUTHARAYIL, ERUVA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. 2. PULLUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2992, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY, PULLUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2992, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY G.P. SMT.M.R.SRELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.6202 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be qualified for applying to the post of Peon in the 2nd respondent Bank. The petitioner states that Ext.P2 application was duly despatched to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner on 10.11.2007 as evidenced by Ext.P3 certificate of posting. However, the petitioner did not get any call letter for the written test and that is why the petitioner has approached this court. The writ petition was moved on 22.2.2008. Since the written test was scheduled on 24.2.2008, I had granted an interim order directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to write the written test. Today a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that they have not received the application stated to have been submitted by the petitioner. They also produced Ext.R2(a) list of applications received for the post of Peon, wherein the petitioner's application does not find a place. The 2nd respondent submits that there is no merit in the writ petition. w.p.c.6202/08 2 2. I have considered the contentions of both parties in detail. 3. No doubt Ext.P3 would show that the petitioner had dispatched some letter to the 2nd respondent under certificate of posting. But that cannot be the proof of receipt of the application by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner does not allege any mala fide on the part of respondents 2 and 3, but only submits that the application would have been misplaced in the office of the 2nd respondent. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent they categorically assert that they have not received the application submitted by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, although I sympathise with the petitioner, nothing can be done in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.6202/08 3