IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37179 of 2007(A) PETITIONER: ------------------- D.SANILKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O DAVID, MARRY VILASOM, KODUVILA, SINKARAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HON. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.(LABOUR), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER'S PUBLIC GRIEVANCES CELL, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, TRIVANDRUM. 6. THE COMMANDANT, K.A.P.BATTALION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. THE COMMANDANT K.A.P.BATTALION, PALGHAT DIST. 8. THE COMMANDANT K.A.P.BATTALION, MANIYAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37179 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was called for an interview in the office of the 5th respondent in connection with the selection to the post of 'Drummer' in the Police Department. According to him, he was nominated from the Employment Exchange, Kollam and the same was forwarded to the Employment Exchange, Palakkad. The petitioner was not selected. Apparently, the petitioner was not selected, though he has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, on account of a mistake which had allegedly crept in, in the letter forwarded by the District Employment Officer, Kollam to the District Employment Officer, Palakkad. The petitioner moved the Government pointing out the detriment caused to him. He then moved this court in W.P.(C)No.20803/01, which was disposed of under Ext.P3 judgment directing the Government to look into the petitioner's complaint and take a decision in accordance with law. It seems that by Ext.P4, the Government directed the Director of Employment and W.P.(C).NO.37179/07 :: 2 :: Training to consider the petitioner against the next arising vacancy in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, he was not so considered, but some other person was appointed in the vacancy which arose after Ext.P4, as evidenced by Ext.P5. The petitioner moved this court under the Contempt of Courts Act as C.O.C.No.542/02, and by Ext.P6 order dated 6.4.2004 this court, recording the submission made by the Government Pleader that a vacancy of Drummer was available in the KAP Battalion V, Maniyar, directed the Director General of Police to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the said vacancy. A further order was passed under Ext.P7 restraining the filling up of the post of 'Drummer' in Maniyar without obtaining orders from this court. The petitioner was called for interview as evidenced by Exts.P8 and P9. The petitioner attended the interview, but was not appointed and the fact was again brought to the notice in C.O.C.No.542/02. After considering the facts in totality, a Division Bench of this court dismissed the said Contempt of Court Case, finding that, apart from the petitioner, two other persons were considered for the post W.P.(C).NO.37179/07 :: 3 :: of Drummer at KAP Battalion, Maniyar. One Ignatius, who has secured highest in the practical test and interview, was selected. The Division Bench found that the earlier direction was only to consider the petitioner and he was considered. But some other person was found to be better qualified and was selected. Therefore, the Contempt of Court Case was dismissed giving the petitioner liberty to take appropriate steps in relation to selection, if he has a grievance regarding the selection. It seems that the petitioner, thereafter, moved the Chief Secretary of the Kerala State vide Ext.P14 alleging non-consideration of the petitioner for the post. Later, the petitioner has moved this court with this writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.G.Radhakrishnan and learned Government Pleader as well. 3. In my view, no useful purpose will be served by directing the first respondent to take action on Ext.P14. The Division Bench of this court had given limited liberty to the petitioner to take steps in relation to the selection to the post of Drummer in the KAP Battalion at Maniyar. The W.P.(C).NO.37179/07 :: 4 :: petitioner has not done so. There is nothing to show that the Government, at this stage, can do anything in relation to the said selection. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge