IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 7409 of 2010(A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN ,S/O.SETHUMADHAVA WARRIER, THRIKKAZHIKUNNATH WARIYAM,KAVUVATTOM, CHERPULASSERY PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVAWOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE CHERPULASSERY SREE AYYAPPANKAVU DEVASWOM CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1 SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R2 SRI.K.C.KIRAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.7409 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Clause IX of Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent. Clause IX of Ext.P4 states that the applications if made by the petitioner for appointment pursuant to the notifications to be issued, need not be entertained in future. Against Clause IX of Ext.P4, petitioner filed a revision under Sec.18 of the H.R & C.E Act, 1951 before the 1st respondent and by Ext.P5 order, 1st respondent rejected the revision. It is these proceedings which are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. Evidently, the reason stated in the resolution not to W.P.(C) No.7409 of 2010 -: 2 :- accept any application for employment from the petitioner, for the reason that, he had instituted various litigations against the 2nd respondent, for which the respondents had to incur unnecessary expenditure cannot be sustained. In my view, initiation of legal proceedings cannot render him ineligible for employment. It is directed that, if Ext.P2 application has been filed by the petitioner, the same will be dealt with in accordance of law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt