IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11828 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIKUMAR.K.G. KUNNAKKATTU HOUSE LAKKAATTOOR, PO. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS SRI.R.ANISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.G. UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REP. ITS REGISTRAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD ADV.T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11828 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner passed SSLC. The 1st respondent University, by Ext.P1 notification, invited applications for the post of Last Grade Employees (Grade II). As per Ext.P1 notification, the basic qualification prescribed is ability to read and write. The petitioner applied for the post. He was issued with Ext.P4 hall ticket for the written examination to be conducted by the University on 21.11.2009. He appeared for the examination. But in the reverse side of the hall ticket, it was stated that the post is reserved for those who failed in the SSLC examination. The petitioner received Ext.P5 memo for interview. When the petitioner appeared for the interview, the officials of the 1st respondent did not allow the petitioner to participate in the interview pointing out that he had passed SSLC examination. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing clause 1 of Ext.P4(a) finding it as illegal; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment as per Ext.P1 notification.” 2. This very same question, in respect of the very same selection was considered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.32545/2009 and w.p.c.11828/10 2 W.P.(C).No.388/2010. In W.P.(C).No.32545/2009, after elaborately considering the issues involved and on the basis of the Division Bench decision of this Court, which in turn had considered other decisions including the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that there is nothing wrong in screening a large number of candidates who submitted applications, based on the qualification stipulated and the nature and duties of the post, for which selection is to be made. Following that judgment, I also dismissed a writ petition filed by another candidate who submitted application pursuant to the very same notification. In view of the same, I do not think that the petitioner can validly sustain the challenge against the action of the respondents in the matter. Accordingly, following those decisions, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge