IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WA.No.1814 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25697/2008 DATED 26/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ M.VASUDEVAN, S/O.LATE KESAVANUNNI NAIR, MECHERY HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR. 4. K.R.JOSHI, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, LOKAMALLESWARAM, KODUNGALLOOR. 5. P.K.MUKUNDAN, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA ROAD, CHENTHRAPPINI. 6. JOHN P.J., PELLISSERY HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1814 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25697 of 2008 dated 26th August, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (2) The primary relief that was sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition was to direct the second respondent to accept the petitioner's application for consideration for appointment of AWD No.3 at Mathilakam in Kodungallur. (3) The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any material before the Court to show that he had submitted the application before the last date for receipt of the application. This is a disputed fact and this disputed fact cannot be resolved in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. (4) Keeping that principle in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. Therefore, W.A.No.1814 of 2008 2 interference with the said order is not called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns