IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23769 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SREEDHARAN ARINGALAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KARIMBAN, KOLANDHA, MALAPPATOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.G.GIREESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KANNUR-670 003. 3. C.SELVARAJ K., PALANI NIVAS, PUNJAVAYIL HOUSE, PUTHIAYA THERU, P.O., CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 011. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23769 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner and the party respondents were sponsored by the 2nd respondent in response to a requisition made by the 1st respondent for the post of Part Time Sweeper. In the process of selection, the 3rd respondent got selected. Petitioner challenges the selection of the 3rd respondent mainly on the ground that he is junior to him in age and registration. It is also his case that the marks awarded in Ext.P7, on the basis of which the 3rd respondent got selected, is without any criterion. 2. Admittedly, it was in a process of selection that the 3rd respondent got selected. In a process of selection, there is nothing unusual if a junior both in age and registration gets selected by his merit and there is no law prohibiting such a selection. In so far as the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no criterion on the basis of which marks indicated in Ext.P7 have been awarded is concerned, in my view, that plea of the petitioner is self contradictory. This is for the reason that petitioner's claim for appointment is also based on the marks WPC No. 23769/10 :2 : awarded. In any case, having subjected himself to selection process without any protest, petitioner cannot contend that the criterion adopted for selection is illegal. 3. Counsel contends that a retrenched person is entitled to preference. In support of this contention, counsel relies on Ext.P4 Government order dated 11th of December, 1958. At best, Ext.P4 only provides for a preference, and necessarily, the theory of preference can only apply in a case where other things are equal. In this case, the marks awarded to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent shows that while the 3rd respondent secured 15 marks, petitioner secured only 14 marks. Therefore, both were not equally placed, and therefore, petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P4. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp